Skip to main content

Full text of "Wharf J-10 demolition and improvements : draft environmental impact report"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 07192 2281 



WHARF J-10 DEMOLITION AND 
IMPROVEMENTS 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

Planning Department Case No. 2001.0636E 
State Clearinghouse No. 2004072100 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
OCT 1 7 2005 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Written comments should be sent to: 
Paul E. Maltzer 
Environmental Review Officer 
San Francisco Planning Department 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



Draft EIR Publication Date: 
October 15, 2005 

Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: 
November 17, 2005 

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: 

October 15, 2005 through November 29, 2005 




W555d 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 07192 2281 



WHARF J-10 DEMOLITION AND 
IMPROVEMENTS 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

Planning Department Case No. 2001.0636E 
State Clearinghouse No. 2004072100 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
OCT 1 7 2005 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Written comments should be sent to: 
Paul E. Maltzer 
Environmental Review Officer 
San Francisco Planning Department 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



Draft EIR Publication Date: 
October 15, 2005 

Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: 
November 17, 2005 

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: 

October 15, 2005 through November 29, 2005 




W555d 




San Francisco Public Library 



Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public library 
100 LarWn Street, St!; floor 
Sanfraitciseo, CA y^ ( j-2 

REFERENCE BOOK 



Not to be taken from the Library 




PLANNING DEPARTMENT 

City and County of San Francisco • 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 • San Francisco, California • 94103-2414 

MAIN NUMBER DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR PLANNING INFORMATION COMMISSION CALENDAR 

(415)558-6378 PHONE: 558-641 1 PHONE: 558-6350 PHONE: 558-6377 INFO: 558-6422 

4TH FLOOR 5TH FLOOR MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL INTERNET WEB SITE 

FAX: 558.-6426 FAX: 558-6409 FAX: 558-5991 WWW.SFGOV.ORG/PLANNING 



DATE: October 15, 2005 

TO: Distribution List for the Wharf J-10 Project EIR 

FROM: Paul E. Maltzer, Environmental Review Officer 

SUBJECT: Request for the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Wharf J-10 Project 
(Case No. 2001. 0636E) 



This is the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Wharf J-10 Project. A public hearing will be 
held on the adequacy and accuracy of this document. After the public hearing, our office will prepare and publish 
a document entitled "Comments and Responses," which will contain a summary of all relevant comments on this 
Draft EIR and our responses to those comments, along with copies of the letters received and a transcript of the 
public hearing. The Comments and Responses document may also specify changes to this Draft EIR. Public 
agencies and members of the public who testify at the hearing on the Draft EIR will automatically receive a copy 
of the Comments and Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved for certification; others may 
receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting our office. This Draft EIR, together with the Comments 
and Responses document, will be considered by the Planning Commission in an advertised public meeting, and 
then certified as a Final EIR if deemed adequate. -.:-.:. 

After certification, we will modify the Draft EIR as specified by the Comments and Responses document and 
print both documents in a single publication called the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Final EIR will 
add no new information to the combination of the two documents except to reproduce the certification resolution. 
It will simply provide the information in one rather than two documents. Therefore, if you receive a copy of the 
Comments and Responses document in addition to this copy of the Draft EIR, you will technically have a copy of 
the Final EIR. 

We are aware that many people who receive the Draft EIR and Comments and Responses document have no 
interest in receiving virtually the same information after the EIR has been certified. To avoid expending money 
and paper needlessly, we would like to send copies of the Final EIR, in Adobe Acrobat format on a compact disk 
(CD), to private individuals only if they request them. Therefore, if you would like a copy of the Final EIR, 
please fill out and mail the postcard provided inside the back cover to the Major Environmental Analysis division 
of the Planning Department within two weeks after certification of the EIR. Any private party not requesting a 
Final EIR by that time will not be mailed a copy. 



Thank you for your interest in this project. 



[ 
c 

[ 
[ 

[ 
[ 
c 

[ 

[ 
c 
[ 

c 

c 
[ 

: 
: 

c 



WHARF J-10 DEMOLITION AND 
IMPROVEMENTS 

Draft Environmental Impact Report 

Planning Department Case No. 2001 .0636E 
State Clearinghouse No. 2004072100 



Written comments should be sent to: 
Paul E. Maltzer 
Environmental Review Officer 
San Francisco Planning Department 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



Draft EIR Publication Date: 
October 15, 2005 

Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: 
November 17, 2005 

Draft EIR Public Comment Period: 

October 15, 2005 through November 29, 2005 



This document printed on recycled paper. 
203428 



[ 
[ 

[ 

[ 
[ 
c 

. E 
[ 
[ 

[ 
I 
L 

L 

I 
i 

3 1223 07192 2281 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

WHARF J- 10 DEMOLITION AND IMPROVEMENTS 
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 



Page 



I. SUMMARY 1 

n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10 

A. Site Location 10 

B. Project Characteristics 20 

C. Project Sponsor's Objectives 35 

D. Schedule, Approval Requirements and General Plan Policies 35 

in. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 38 

A. Land Use, Plans, and Policies 38 

B. Cultural Resources 52 

C. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes 64 

D. Growth Inducement 77 

TV. MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES 78 

A. Mitigation Measures Identified in the EIR • 79 

B. Mitigation Measures from the Initial Study 83 

C. Improvement Measures Identified in the EIR 89 

V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 90 
AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 

VL ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 91 

A. No Project 91 

B. Rehabilitation of Wharf J- 10 92 

C. Reconstruction of Wharf J- 10 with Salvaged Elements 93 

Vn. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 95 

VHL APPENDICES 104 



FX. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342H 



11 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



LIST OF FIGURES 

1. Project Location 11 

2. Views of Jefferson Street 12 

3. View of Wharf J- 10 from Outer Lagoon 13 

4. Cross Section 14 

5. Conditions of Pile Cap Beam on Column Line 2 1 6 

6. Progressive Failure of Pile Cap Beam on Column Line 3 17 

7. J-9 - J-l Interface on Column Line 36 Progressive Loss of End Supports 1 8 

8. Phase 1 - Demolish J- 10 Shed 21 

9. Phase 2 - Demolish J-l Deck/Substructure 23 

10. Proposed Changes to Cross Section 25 

1 1 . Example of Riprap to be Placed at Wharf J-l Site 26 

12. Existing Site Plan 28 

13. Proposed F. Alioto Fish Co. Fish Processing Facility Plan 29 

14. Proposed F. Alioto Fish Co. Fish Processing Facility Elevation, Southern Facade, 30 

View from Fish Alley 

15. Phase 3 - Tenant Replacement Facilities 3 1 

16. Phase 4 - Port Development Options 33 

1 7. Approximate Proposed Building Height, Jefferson Street Between Hyde and 48 

Leavenworth Street, Looking North Toward Project Site 
(Revised Initial Study Figure 12) 

18. Existing Potentially Eligible (California Register) Historic District 55 



» 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342X 



111 



Wharf J- JO Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER I 



SUMMARY 



A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (p. 10) 

The project site, Wharf J-10, is located at 2936 Hyde Street in the Fisherman's Wharf area of San 
Francisco's Northeastern Waterfront. The project site is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the 
north, Richard Henry Dana Place (an extension of Leavenworth Street) to the east, Fish Alley to 
the south, and the Hyde Street Harbor access road to the west. 

The approximately 24,400-square-foot project site comprises a wharf substructure and a fish 
processing building. The existing building on Wharf J-10 is a one-story plus mezzanine 
(approximately 18-foot tall), rectangular building that measures approximately 350-by-50 feet in 
dimension, with its greater dimension running east to west along Fish Alley. The building also 
has an approximately 30-by-50-foot addition attached to the southwestern corner of the building, 
abutting the Hyde Street Harbor access road. The structure is sited at the water's edge alongside 
the Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon. Approximately 15 feet of the southern half of the wharf is 
located on the level upland portion of the site and is partially supported by a redwood timber 
retaining wall that defines the water's edge (a seawall). Approximately 35 feet of the northern 
half of the building and an additional 1 0-foot edge of wharf extends over the water. The wharf 
substructure consists of a concrete platform supported on approximately 173 creosote-treated 1 
timber piles that have been driven into the sloping mudline of the bay. A timber retaining wall 
underneath the wharf separates the land side of the wharf from the water side of the wharf. The 
wharf contains additional supporting elements such as stringers and pile cap beams. 

The project sponsor, the Port of San Francisco, proposes to demolish the fish processing building 
and wharf to abate an existing public health and safety hazard caused by the unsafe structure and 
its potential for collapse. The Wharf J-10 structure would be detached from Wharf J-9 to the east 
and Wharf J-l 1 to the west prior to demolition. Most supporting piles would be removed, with 
the exception of approximately 34 existing wharf edge piles that would be used as marking piles 
for maritime purposes and for providing strength to the slope. Piles to be removed would be saw 
cut six inches above the mudline, not pulled or fractured, to avoid disturbing sediments in the 
Bay. The retaining wall would be removed and up to about four feet of new riprap would be laid 
in order to stabilize the shoreline. New facing class riprap would be placed over the existing 
poor-quality riprap, which would serve as an underlayment for the new riprap. The new riprap 

1 Creosote is a wood preservative used in a marine environment. 



Case No. 2001. 063 6E 

G:\203xxx\20342X 



1 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



would be placed along approximately 350 feet of the length of the shoreline bank, three feet 
inland between the existing retaining wall and the proposed concrete platform. The new riprap 
would also be placed outboard of the existing retaining wall, extending between five to 25 feet 
into the Bay, with the narrowest width at the top of the slope and the widest width at the base of 
the slope, to establish a more stable shoreline. With the building and deck removed, the Port 
would install guardrails at the east and west ends of the site, where there would be a 
perpendicular drop; the north edge, about 14 feet from Fish Alley, would terminate at the more 
gentle riprap bank. 

After demolition, the tenants of Wharf J-10 (F. Alioto Fish Company and California Shellfish 
Company) could rebuild facilities to support their businesses and fishing industry operations. 
However, it is not known with certainty at this time whether the project would proceed beyond 
demolition of Wharf J-10, and it is possible that the project would consist only of the work 
described above. 

The potential new construction and use improvements proposed by the existing tenants are as 
follows: 

1) F. Alioto Fish Company (F. Alioto) - A portion of Wharf J-10 would be reconstructed, 
including a new, pile-supported fish processing building for use by F. Alioto within its 
leasehold on the western side of the project site. Approximately 5,600 square feet of the 
proposed wharf would be constructed over the water — including an approximately 1 ,400- 
square-foot wharf edge. The wharf would contain between 45 and 60 piles and a 
concrete deck. 2 The proposed fish processing building would contain a total of 
17,312 square feet, including approximately 9,822 square feet on the "Wharf (ground 
floor) and mezzanine levels and 7,490 square feet of area on the first floor. 
Approximately 4,200 square feet of the northern side of the building would be built on 
the portion of the wharf that is over the water and approximately 3,200 square feet would 
be built on land on the southern side of the building. In addition, a 10-foot-wide wharf 
deck would span the entire length of the north side of the proposed building over the Bay. 
The proposed building would be approximately 32 feet in height, 3 measured according to 
the San Francisco Planning Code, with limited roof elevations of approximately 35 feet 
above the main entrances on the north and south elevations. 



The exact number of piles depends on the foundation plans, which have not yet been completed. For the purposes 
of this analysis, a generic set of parameters, based on standard engineering assumptions, were used to determine the 
number of piles that would be needed for the proposed building. If the project uses wood piles, the project would 
require approximately 60 piles and fender piles. If concrete or steel piles are proposed, the project would require 
approximately 45 piles and fender piles. Because it has not yet been determined which existing piles are in good 
enough condition to support new construction, this analysis conservatively assumes that all existing piles would 
need to be removed. 

Due to an error, the Initial Study mistakenly stated that the height of the new building would be approximately 
40 feet, with limited areas up to 44 feet tall. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342H 



2 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



2) California Shellfish Company (Cal Shell) - A 1 ,714-square-foot concrete pad would be 
created over the existing solid fill along the north side of Fish Alley between 
Leavenworth Street and the F. Alioto Fish Company leasehold. The concrete pad would 
be used by Cal Shell to support their existing fish handling facilities on the south side of 
Fish Alley, near the corner of Leavenworth Street. The concrete pad is proposed as an 
interim improvement to create an open air work area across the street, providing an off- 
street area for Cal Shell to load and unload their trucks and general work area to carry out 
fishing industry-related operations without blocking circulation on Fish Alley. While the 
area of the footprint of the concrete pad would remain the same as provided in Cal Shell's 
current lease, the configuration of the footprint would be different. The concrete pad 
would be located inland of the former retaining wall, which would have been removed 
during demolition. 

In addition, there are sections of the Wharf J- 10 site that are not currently occupied by tenants and 
are unleased. The Port worked with the Fisherman's Wharf community to identify four options 
for possible fishing industry -related uses that could be developed in the unleased portions of the 
Wharf J- 10 site. All of the development options described below are subject to the availability of 
new sources of funding to support the development and management costs of new fishing 
industry facilities. Development of new fish handling facilities would depend on fishing industry 
market conditions and the demand for such new facilities. 

Public Fish Receiving Wharf at East End of Wharf J-10- The Port could construct an 
approximately 1,800-square-foot fish receiving wharf open to general use by fishing boat 
operators on the east end of the project site, adjacent to an existing fish hoist at the terminus of 
Leavenworth Street and the concrete pad proposed by Cal Shell. This wharf would be designed 
for use by fishing boat operators to transfer their catch from their boats to shore and constructed 
to allow for an enclosed fish receiving building to be built 1 on top of the deck at a later date. The 
receiving wharf would require pile-supported construction. 

Public Fish Receiving Wharf at West End of Wharf J-10 - The Port could construct an 
approximately 1,800-square-foot fish receiving wharf on the west end of the project site, adjacent 
to the access roadway to the Hyde Street Harbor. This wharf would be used by fishing boat 
operators to transfer their catch from their boats to shore. This wharf would be designed to allow 
future construction of an enclosed fish receiving building on top of the deck. The receiving wharf 
would require all new pile-supported construction. 

New Fishing Industry Building - The Port could reconstruct an additional portion of Wharf J-10 
and construct a new fish handling building atop the new wharf, between the proposed new F. 
Alioto building and the east end fish receiving wharf site described above. Conceptually, the 
building would provide approximately 7,000 square feet of fishing industry space on one main 
level and a partial mezzanine level, similar to space use patterns in the existing Wharf J-10 shed 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20142H 



3 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



building, within a building height of approximately 20 feet. Any development of such a facility 
would depend in large part on successful negotiations and agreement with Cal Shell, because the 
building footprint would overlap Cal Shell's current leasehold, as well as the interim concrete pad 
proposed by Cal Shell above. It is not known whether this fishing industry building would be 
developed by the Port, Cal Shell, or a future tenant. 

Floating Boat Repair Dock at Wharf J-10 - The Port could construct a system of floats and ramps 
for use by fishing boat operators to provide space for minor boat repairs and maintenance. At this 
time, two options for such type of improvements have been developed. 

One option is to construct a floating dock and ramp system in the space between the F. Alioto 
leasehold site and the east end fish receiving wharf described above. Boats would be able to pull 
up next to the 125-foot-long dock, which would be connected to a ramp system allowing walking 
access to the east end fish receiving wharf. The dock edge would allow space for fishing boat 
operators to load and off-load gear and conduct minor boat maintenance work confined within the 
vessel. This dock and ramp system could be built compatibly with the fishing industry building 
concept described in the previous paragraph. 

Floating Boat Repair Dock at Foot of Leavenworth Street — Another option would be to develop 
a working dock for fishing boats off the end of Leavenworth Street, adjacent to the existing fish 
hoist. The conceptual design, which was proposed by the members of the Crab Boat Owners 
Association, would consist of an access ramp from the end of Leavenworth Street to a length of 
floating dock that runs parallel to Wharf J-10. This design would allow for vessels to berth on 
both sides of the floating dock and conduct minor fishing vessel maintenance that is confined 
within the vessel. As conceived, this concept could affect another fishing facility operated by Cal 
Shell located immediately to the east at Wharf J-9 (which is separate from the Cal Shell facilities 
at Wharf J-10 and across the street on the south side of Fish Alley). Any plans to pursue this set 
of dock and ramp improvements would require discussions and agreement with Cal Shell. 

B. MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

This environmental impact report, for the Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements project, 
focuses on issues in regard to historic architectural and archeological resources. All other 
potential environmental effects were found to be at a less-than-significant level or to be mitigated 
to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures to be imposed and implemented by the 
project sponsor. Land use and hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are included in the EER. 
for informational purposes. (Please see the Initial Study, included in this document as Appendix 
A, for analysis of other issues.) 



Case No. 200 1. 063 6E 

G:\20Sxxx\20342H 



4 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



LAND USE, PLANS, AND ZONING (p. 38) 

The Initial Study, published on July 1 7, 2004, found that, because the land uses at the site would 
not change under the proposed project, there would be no significant environmental effects on 
land use. A discussion is included in the EIR for informational purposes only. The proposed 
project would be consistent with the policies and plans that apply to the project site, including the 
C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, the San Francisco General Plan, and the Port's 
Waterfront Land Use Plan. 

In a study prepared in September 2001 by Architectural Resources Group (ARG), Wharf J-10 
was identified as being part of an architectural character district for which the Port subsequently 
adopted design criteria. The proposed new construction on a portion of the site, should it occur as 
currently proposed, would be inconsistent with certain of the design criteria. While not a 
significant impact under CEQA, an improvement measure has been identified under which the 
Port would require the proposed new construction to be consistent, to the maximum extent 
feasible, with the design criteria. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES (p. 52) 
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

In the 2001 ARG study, Wharf J-10 was identified as a contributing resource to a potential 
California Register-eligible historic district due to its role in the history of the fishing industry in 
San Francisco. The proposed project would demolish Wharf J-10, which would result in an 
adverse impact to the building, as a contributing resource, and to the historic district, as well. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The project site is sensitive for submerged prehistoric and historical archeological resources that 
are potentially eligible for the California Register. Early prehistoric resources may lie within San 
Francisco Bay submerged by sediment deposition and the rise in sea-level since the last period of 
glaciation. In the historic period, the project site was not occupied until the construction of the 
existing wharf in 1919. However, there is evidence that two Gold Rush period shipwrecks are 
located in this vicinity, and so they may be present within the project site: the Tonquin (sunk in 
1 849) and the Carlota (sunk in 1 850). Pile driving activities for new construction under the 
proposed project could adversely affect these archeological resources. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES (p. 64) 

Although the Initial Study determined that the proposed project would not result in any 
significant impacts (after mitigation) from hazardous materials and hazardous wastes during 
implementation of the proposed project, a discussion of this topic is included in the EIR to 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342X 



5 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



provide more background information regarding the history of uses on the project site and in the 
surrounding area, the existence of hazardous materials resulting from past and present uses, and 
the potential for exposure to hazardous materials on the project site during implementation of the 
proposed project. The EIR also includes a more thorough discussion regarding the contamination 
at the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal site (440 Jefferson Street) and the ongoing remediation 
efforts at that location. 



C. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 

The primary issue of controversy that has been identified is the demolition of this historical 
resource and whether it is necessary. As described in Chapter II, Project Description, however, 
Wharf J- 10 is in an advanced state of deterioration and poses a public health and safety hazard in 
its current condition. Demolition is the only financially feasible option for removing this health 
and safety hazard. 

The Port Commission would decide whether to approve or disapprove the proposed project after 
review and certification of this EIR by the Planning Commission, and, if appealed to the Board of 
Supervisors, affirmation of the certification of the EIR by the Board. In selecting or rejecting 
project alternatives, decision makers may also use other information in the public record. 

D. MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES (p. 78) 

MITIGATION MEASURES 



CULTURAL RESOURCES 
Historic Architectural Resources 

1. Detailed recordation of the Wharf J-l building and substructure prior to demolition 
would partially mitigate the loss of the historical resource. In May 2003, the Port 
retained ARG to prepare archival-quality photographs and documentation of Wharf J-10. 
ARG's report includes: 

• Architectural Recordation Form; and 

• Fourteen black-and-white (exterior) archival-quality photographs; and 

• Original 1919 building plans. 

Recordation provides important historical information that minimizes, but does not fully 
mitigate, the loss of historical resources and features. The documentation of the building 
would be considered for both reconstruction and archival purposes. Implementation of 
this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to historical resources, but not to a less- 
than-significant level. The loss of the Wharf J-10 would be a significant and unavoidable 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342X 



6 



Wharf J-l Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



impact. Significant impacts to historical resources could only be reduced to a less-than- 
significant level by selection of Alternative A (see Chapter VI, Alternatives). 

Archeological Resources 

2. The project sponsor shall retain the services of an archeological consultant who meets the 
professional qualifications of a marine archeologist as specified in Public Resources Code 
Section 6313(e). The archeological consultant shall undertake an archeological testing 
program and, if determined warranted by the Environmental Review Officer (ERO), an 
archeological data recovery program as specified herein. The archeological consultant's 
work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the direction of the ERO and be 
conducted prior to any onsite project activities that would disturb buried and/or submerged 
archeological resources. Study results shall be used by the ERO to modify, as necessary, 
the project to ensure that significant resources are preserved, salvaged, or documented as 
required by law, rule, or regulation, and as detailed in Chapter IV, Mitigation Measures. 

IMPROVEMENT MEASURE 
Land Use and Planning 

1. Prior to approval of a new building for F. Alioto or of other new construction on the Wharf 
J- 10 site, the Port shall review the design(s) for consistency with the Design Criteria for 
Seawall Lots 302 & 303 (Fish Alley Area) included in the Waterfront Land Use Plan 
(WLUP) Design and Access Element. The Port shall ensure that any design approved for 
construction is consistent with the design criteria to the maximum extent feasible consistent 
with other WLUP policies, including ensuring the continuation of fishing industry 
operations at Fish Alley, and consistent with existing lease provisions and other 
requirements. 

E. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (p. 91) 

A. NO PROJECT 

This alternative would entail no change to the site. The existing building and wharf substructure 
would not be demolished and would not be replaced with a new fish processing facility, a 
concrete staging area, or a fish receiving wharf. 

Under this alternative, there would be no immediate effects on historical resources. However, 
given the advanced state of deterioration of the existing Wharf J-10 building and substructure, it 
is likely that the wharf would ultimately collapse into the Bay, thus resulting in an adverse impact 
on the eligibility of the historic district for the California Register. In addition, this impact would 
not be mitigated under this alternative because there would be no documentation of the building. 
Under this alternative, there would be no immediate effects on archeological resources because 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342K 



7 



Wharf .1-10 Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



there would be no pile driving activities, unless or until the structure were to collapse and be 
replaced. 

B. HISTORIC REHABILITATION OF WHARF J- 10 WITH NEW 
SUBSTRUCTURE 

This alternative would re-situate the building on a reconstructed substructure and rehabilitate the 
building in accordance with the WLUP's Fish Alley Design Criteria. Due to the deterioration of 
the substructure that precludes use of construction equipment on, or entry of workers to, the site, 
reconstruction of the substructure would require that the building be suspended off of the ground 
for the duration of the reparation and stabilization of the wharf substructure. Port engineering 
staff has theorized that a steel-framed cage-like structure could possibly be built around the 
existing fish processing building, with the building connected to this cage, to support and stabilize 
the building during work on the substructure. After stabilization of the substructure, the building 
would be replaced on its original footprint and rehabilitated according to the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and in accordance with the design 
criteria of the WLUP's Fish Alley Amendments. However, given its fragile condition, it is not 
known with certainty whether this, or another, engineering solution could achieve preservation of 
the building. 

This alternative would avoid demolition of Wharf J-10 and thus would avoid impacts to this 
building and to the historic district that would occur under the proposed project. However, some 
impacts would still occur to the submerged archeological resources because it is likely that new 
piles would need to be driven into the Bay floor as part of the stabilization of the wharf 
substructure. It is possible that the building would sustain substantial damage during suspension, 
which would also adversely affect this historical resource. Furthermore, the cost of using a steel- 
framed suspension device would be prohibitively expensive. Effects related to hazardous 
materials would be the same as those with the proposed project. 

C. RECONSTRUCTION OF WHARF J-10 WITH SALVAGED ELEMENTS 

This alternative would entail demolition of Wharf J-10 and construction of a new single-story fish 
processing building, on a portion of the site, by the F. Alioto Fish Company using salvaged 
materials from the existing building. The design of the new building would be consistent, insofar 
as is possible, with the Fish Alley Design Criteria of the Waterfront Land Use Plan Design and 
Access Element. This alternative would result in similar impacts to most cultural resources as the 
proposed project, including impacts to the Wharf J-10 and the existing potential California 
Register-eligible historic district and to submerged archeological resources. However, this 
alternative would further lessen the significant impact pf demolition of the historic resource by 
retaining aspects of the character of the existing structure through the reuse of its elements on the 
proposed replacement fish processing facility, although this impact would remain significant and 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

C:\203xxx\20S42H 



8 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



I. SUMMARY 



unavoidable. Furthermore, this alternative would diminish the less-than-significant impact of 
new construction on two other historic buildings that would remain following demolition of 
Wharf J-10. Effects related to hazardous materials would be the same as those with the proposed 
project. 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342H 



9 



Wharf .1-10 Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER II 



PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



A. SITE LOCATION 

The project site, Wharf J-10, is within the Fisherman's Wharf area of San Francisco's 
Northeastern Waterfront, an area adjacent to San Francisco Bay, which is characterized by fishing 
industry and restaurant and retail commercial uses. Wharf J-10 is at 2936 Hyde Street, situated 
between the Hyde Street Pier and its Commercial Fishing Harbor and Richard Henry Dana Place 
(an extension of Leavenworth Street), on the north side of Fish Alley, in the block to the north of 
Jefferson Street, as shown on Figure 1 . The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) 
Zoning District, Waterfront Special Use District No. 1, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

The approximately 24,400-square-foot project site is accessed by land from Fish Alley, north of 
Jefferson Street, and by water from within the Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon, a part of San 
Francisco Bay. The portion of Jefferson Street that borders Fish Alley is occupied by restaurants, 
an insurance brokerage, and fish processing buildings that are occupied by the F. Alioto Fish 
Company (F. Alioto) and California Shellfish Company (Cal Shell) (see Figure 2). Across 
Jefferson Street to the south is the Cannery, a shopping complex. The terminus to the Hyde 
Street Cable Car is located in Aquatic Park one block west, on the eastern side of Hyde Street. 
Access to the Hyde Street fishing harbor/marina, Wharf J-l 1, runs along the west side of Wharf J-10. 

EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS 

Wharf J-10 extends approximately 350 feet along the block bounded by Leavenworth Street, 
Hyde Street, Fish Alley, and the San Francisco Bay and comprises a wharf substructure and a 
building. The existing building on Wharf J-10 is a one-story plus mezzanine (approximately 18- 
foot tall), rectangular building that measures approximately 350-by-50 feet in dimension, with its 
greater dimension running east to west along Fish Alley. The building also has an approximately 
30-by-50-foot addition attached to the southwestern corner of the building, abutting the Hyde 
Street Harbor access road. The structure is sited at the water's edge alongside the Fisherman's 
Wharf Lagoon (see Figure 3). Approximately 15 feet of the southern half of the wharf is located 
on the level upland portion of the site and is partially supported by a redwood timber retaining 
wall that defines the water's edge. Approximately 35 feet of the northern half of the.building and 
an additional 10-foot edge of wharf extends over the water (see Figure 4). The wharf 
substructure consists of a concrete platform supported on approximately 1 73 creosote- 



CaseNo. 200/.0636E 

G:\20ixxx\2ti342X 



10 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 




Cross-Section (see Figure 4)- 




OUTER LAGOON 



Wharf Edge 



BUILDING J-10 



- Retaining Wall 



FISH ALLEY 



G.P. 
Resources 
Corp. 



Former Mobil 
Oil Bulk Plant 



Existing 
Alioto-Lazio 
Fish Co 
Building 



Existing 
California 
Shellfish Co. 
Building 



X— X 
X— X 



Existing 
Cioppino's 
Resturant 



Feet 



JEFFERSON ST 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and (Partial) Reconstruction / 203428 ■ 

Figure 1 

Project I .ocation 



n 



View 1 : View of north side of Jefferson looking west from Leavenworth Street 




View 2: View of north side of Jefferson Street, looking east from Hyde Street 

Wharf J- 10 Demolition and (Partial) Reconstruction / 203428 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 

Figure 2 

Views of Jefferson Street 



12 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 



-Wharf J- 10 Demolition and (Partial) Reconstrut tion 203 (28 ■ 

Figure 3 

View of Wharf J 10 from 
Outer Lagoon, Looking South 



13 



< 

X 



CD 
z 

Q 
_J 

m 




o 



CO 

o 



U 



"fc> 
I 



14 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



treated 4 timber piles that have been driven into the sloping mudline of the bay. A timber 
retaining wall underneath the wharf separates the land side of the wharf from the water side of the 
wharf. The wharf contains additional supporting elements such as pile cap beams, which rest 
atop and connect the structural piles, and stringers, which are long horizontal timbers that cross 
the pile cap beams at right angles. The retaining wall is supported and protected by a layer of 
rocks, called riprap, that sits atop the sloping shoreline bank that extends approximately 45 feet 
out into the Bay from the retaining wall. According to the Port, the wooden wall has deteriorated 
and has lost its structural integrity. 

Wharf J- 10 is currently connected to Wharf J-9 to the east and Wharf J-l 1 to the west by pile cap 
beams and stringers. The Wharf J-10 facility is in an advanced state of deterioration. In 2000, 
the Port of San Francisco (Port) hired Structus Engineering to assess the condition of the facility, 
which was documented in the Fishery Wharf J-10 Facility Emergency Engineering Study. The 
Structus engineering study found that the concrete slab overlying the wood decking in the fish 
processing building is cracked and deteriorated due to differential movement, and that the 
existing wharf construction is deteriorated and not capable of supporting the 250-pound-per- 
square-foot (psf) live load required. In addition, supporting elements, such as the timber piers, 
stringers, and pile cap beams are failing (see Figures 5 to 7, pp. 16 to 1 8). The study further 
found that the structure is not capable of supporting the required 125-psf live load for the 
mezzanine and that the lateral bracing is not capable of bracing the building enough to be in 
compliance with current code lateral force requirements. The study concluded that the wharfs 
structural elements were in danger of collapsing and that the building was not safe for occupation 
(Structus, 2000). 

In August 2000, the Port issued a Notice to Vacate the fish processing building on Wharf J-10 
and the supporting wharf substructure because of the potential for imminent collapse due to the 
deterioration of the substructure, and required the two fishing industry tenants (F. Alioto and Cal 
Shell) to vacate the site. The two other tenants had previously abandoned their leases in the 
1990s. The Port then installed steel brace framing to temporarily shore up the northwest corner 
of the structure where there were large visible cracks in the exterior walls. Utilities to Wharf J-10 
were cut off after the site was vacated in August 2000. Hazardous materials such as lead paint 
and asbestos have since been removed from the building. The vacation notice and temporary 
shoring work were carried out by the Port pursuant to its responsibilities to maintain public and 
life safety of Port facilities, as defined by the San Francisco Building Code. These regulatory 
responsibilities are separate and discreet from the Port's landlord responsibilities exercised 
through leases and license agreements for the use of Port property. 



Creosote is a wood preservative used in a marine environment. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342X 



15 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



Wharf J- 10 has continued to deteriorate since the tenants were evacuated in August 2000. In 
November 2002, Port engineers noticed further building deterioration during an inspection of the 
wharf substructure and building. The most recent deterioration occurred during December 2003, 
when between 500 and 1000 square feet of the northwestern portion of the wharf decking 
collapsed into the water. Further damage occurred as a result of a fire on March 28, 2004. A site 
visit was conducted by a Port engineer on March 29, 2004, to ascertain the extent of the fire 
damage. The Port reported that three truss structures on the east end of the building appeared to 
be charred. Two of the trusses suffered minimal damage. However, the third truss suffered 
substantial damage due to the loss of a cross sectional area approximately one-half inch around 
bracing members and the bottom chord member. In addition, approximately 5 to 10 percent of 
the roof was removed by the San Francisco Fire Department to access the building during the fire. 
The fire did not result in significant structural failures or hazards beyond those previously present 
(Port of San Francisco, 2004). In December 2004, Port engineers conducted another visual 
inspection of the facility and found further indications of structural stress. 

The Wharf J- 10 fish processing facility and wharf substructure were constructed in 1919 by the 
State Board of Harbor Commissioners, the State agency that was the predecessor to the Port of 
San Francisco, to accommodate fish packing departments, storerooms and waterside docking 
facilities, as well as some accessory office use. The building remained in fishing industry use 
until it was condemned in August 2000. The wood frame building was originally constructed of 
two-inch ship-lap wood siding and wood trusses, and is supported by wood piles on a wood 
substructure with a concrete topping slab floor. 

The building is Mission Revival in architectural design and has eight arched recessed openings on 
the north and south facades, as well as a red tile skirt-roof. Although the structure is extant, it is 
deteriorated, and has been altered on the interior and exterior over its approximately 8 5 -year 
lifetime. Alterations include the construction of interior mezzanines and replacement of doors 
and windows, as well as repair of the east end of the building as a result of fire damage in 1997. 
Wharf J-10 and two other structures in the Fish Alley area, appear to be collectively eligible for 
the California Register as contributors to a small potential historic district (ARG, 200 1). 5 

Groundwater and saturated soil in the area are contaminated by petroleum, likely resulting from 
the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal at 440 Jefferson Street, immediately south of the site across 
Fish Alley. Mobil (now Exxon Mobil) has been monitoring groundwater at the site since 1 992 in 
compliance with a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) order. More details 
regarding this petroleum contamination were presented in the Wharf J-10 Initial Study report, 
published in August 2004, which also describes the review and remedial action planning now 
underway by Exxon Mobil and the San Francisco RWQCB. Additional information regarding 

5 Architectural Resources Group, Fish Alley Study Area Historic Resources Evaluation and Design 

Recommendations, September 2001. Available for review by appointment as part of the project environmental file 
at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File No. 2001 .0636E. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342X 



19 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



hazardous materials and the RWQCB process is presented in Chapter III.C of this EIR, 
Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes. 



B. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 

The Port, in its regulatory capacity to uphold standards under the San Francisco Building Code, 
proposes to abate the existing public health and safety hazard now present at Wharf J- 10 by 
demolishing the wharf substructure and fish processing building. The Port hired Structus 
Engineering to head a team of consultants including Architectural Resources Group (ARG), 
providing historic architectural expertise, and Kahn & Associates, providing expertise on 
fisheries program and fishing industry needs, to evaluate different preservation and rebuild 
options of Wharf J-10. The Structus team's analysis concluded that the entire wharf substructure 
requires replacement or demolition to resolve the life and public safety hazards posed by the 
deteriorated facility. Hazardous materials such as lead paint and asbestos have already been 
removed from the building. 

This EIR analyzes the environmental impacts associated with this proposed demolition. In 
addition, it addresses the potential impacts of proposed construction of replacement facilities for 
the two current tenants who maintain leaseholds within the project site, F. Alioto and Cal Shell, 
should these components proceed, and other potential fishing industry-related improvements that 
are dependent on the availability of new funding sources and Port resources. Each of these 
components is described further below. The proposed tenant and fishing industry-related 
improvements are described conceptually, and thus are analyzed at a level of detail that is more 
general because construction, engineering, or programming details are unknown at this time. It is 
not known with certainty at this time whether any aspect of the project would proceed beyond 
demolition of Wharf J-10; that is, it is possible that the project would consist only of the first two 
phases described below. 



PROPOSED DEMOLITION 



PHASE I -DEMOLITION OF WHARF J-10 SHED 

The first phase of the project would be demolition by the Port and its contractor of the Wharf J-10 
shed, as shown in Figure 8. The removal of the shed building would abate a public safety hazard, 
and relieve the load on the Wharf J-10 substructure, which would be removed in the next phase as 
described below. 6 Since hazardous materials have already been removed from the building, the 



According to the Port, the Wharf J-10 building has become an "attractive nuisance" wherein homeless people have 
successfully breached the structural barriers and locks and are at risk of injury or death because of the deteriorated 
condition of the facility; this condition potentially exposes the Port to liability. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\20ixxx\20U2K 



20 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



demolition process would occur relatively quickly (within approximately six weeks). Demolition 
staging could take place from the land side or from the water, dependent on the contractor's 
proposal. This EIR assumes that construction staging would occur from the water side. 
Regardless of staging location, the public would be barred from the area by the demolition 
contractor and/or physical barriers to maintain public safety. 

PHASE 2 - DEMOLITION OF WHARF J-10 SUBSTRUCTURE 

Immediately following the removal of the Wharf J-10 shed, the Port's demolition contractor 
would remove the Wharf J-10 deck, substructure and piles, as shown in Figure 9. The Wharf J-10 
substructure would be detached from Wharf J-9 to the east and Wharf J-l 1 to the west prior to 
removing the deck and substructure. Piles would be cut six inches above the mudline, not pulled 
or fractured, to avoid disturbing sediments in the Bay. The row of 34 piles closest to the shore 
would be left in place, maintaining about 20 feet spacing between each pile to protect mariners 
from hitting the existing rocks that line the shoreline edge ("riprap"). The contractor could stage 
this phase of the demolition from the land side or the water, depending on the contractor's 
proposal. This EIR assumes that construction staging would occur from the water side. All 
building materials and debris would be collected and transported to an upland disposal site. 

Where the wharf intersects the land, the upper portion of the existing earth embankment is 
supported behind an existing retaining wall that is an integral part of the wharfs substructure. As 
part of the substructure and pile removal, the Port's contractor also would remove the retaining 
wall because of its deteriorated condition and its lost structural integrity. To reduce the lateral 
forces on the retaining wall and improve slope stabilization of the shoreline bank, soil located 
upland of the retaining wall would be excavated and new riprap would be laid. The shoreline 
bank within the Bay's tidal zone currently is protected by an existing layer of riprap, although 
certain areas have less riprap protection. The shoreline stabilization proposed in this phase thus 
includes the addition of new riprap on top of the existing riprap in specified areas to create a 
consistent slope of the shoreline bank, extending from north of Fish Alley to the Bay. The new 
riprap would be the same general size as that existing, about 10 inches in diameter, and would be 
placed upland from the toe (i.e., the outermost bayward reach) of the existing riprap. 

In order to achieve the continuous slope desired for protection and stability, the Port estimates 
that about 45 cubic yards of excavated soil would be removed and approximately 400 cubic yards 
of new riprap would be placed. The new facing class riprap would be placed along 
approximately 350 feet of the length of the bank, 7 within a zone about three feet inland from the 
current retaining wall, to varying points that extend between five to 25 feet toward the Bay (see 
Figure 10). Figure 1 1 shows an example of a shoreline protected by riprap. 



Facing class riprap generally consists of rock that is uniform in size, color, and material for aesthetic reasons. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342S 



22 



Wharf J- JO Demolition and Improvements 





s " 

fa 00 

X) 

d 

o 
Q 



J3 

(73 

"o 
£ 

Q 

i 

<N 

<D 
on 
c3 
J3 



23 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



With the Wharf J- 10 building and deck/substructure removed, the Port would install guardrails at 
the east and west ends of the site, at the transitions to Wharves J-9 and J-l 1, to protect public 
safety where there would be a perpendicular drop in grade. Along Fish Alley, the top of the more 
gently sloped riprap bank would begin about 14 feet north of the Alley, thus providing an 
adequately sized safe zone that is not expected to warrant installation of guardrails; however, bull 
rails 8 could be placed along the edge. To ensure that stormwater runoff does not flow untreated 
and drain into the Bay, the Port would carry out surface grade adjustments along Fish Alley, to 
direct flows to inlets that feed into the City's combined sewer system. 9 

One existing Exxon Mobil monitoring well would be affected by the proposed project and would 
have to be properly abandoned prior to demolition. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water 
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) may require subsequent replacement of this well to allow 
continued groundwater monitoring. The proposed project would disturb soil up to two feet below 
ground surface, which is unlikely to be affected by existing groundwater contamination (see 
Chapter III.C, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste). Soil would be stored on-site in a 
covered stockpile and properly characterized prior to disposal. 

Demolition of the Wharf J- 10 shed and substructure and riprap installation would take 
approximately six months to complete and would be planned to start in 2005, once all required 
approvals are secured. The Port estimates the cost of demolition and riprap replacement to be 
approximately $1,000,000. 

POTENTIAL RECONSTRUCTION 

The following paragraphs describe two potential phases of the project that would entail 
construction of new facilities to serve existing Wharf J-l tenants, as well as to make additional 
improvements to the remainder of the Wharf J- 10 site to accommodate other fishing industry 
users. As noted, there is no certainty at this time that either of these phases of the project would 
proceed. The tenant improvements would be contingent on one or both tenants making 
application to, and receiving approval from, the Port to proceed with the improvements and, in 
particular where construction of new structure(s) are proposed, on the tenant(s)' ability to fund 
such construction, while the other fishing industry improvements would be contingent on the Port 
obtaining adequate funding to pursue this component. Should the project not proceed beyond 
completion of Phases 1 and 2 (which are the only components for which the Port has identified 
funding with certainty), the finished project would be as described above, with a narrowed 
Wharf J-l deck, protected by guardrails to the east and west. 



A bull rail is a rail or wooden beam attached to a pier or wharf to demarcate the edge. 

This would incrementally, but not substantially, increase the volume of stormwater flowing to the combined sewer 
system, inasmuch as runoff from the Wharf J-l building roof and from a small area (about 400 square feet) of 
pavement near the intersection of Fish Alley and Leavenworth Street may currently flow directly to the Bay. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\20}xxx\20342X 



24 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



PHASE 3 - TENANT REPLACEMENT FACILITIES 

Both F. Alioto and Cal Shell have 30 years remaining in their leases for use for fish handling 
businesses on portions of the Wharf J- 10 site, as shown in Figure 12. The Port retains control 
over the remaining portions of the facility, for which there currently are no lease proposals. The 
new construction and use improvements proposed by the tenants and analyzed in this EIR are 
presented below. Each tenant is responsible for securing the applicable approvals necessary to 
enable their individual construction projects. 

F. Alioto Fish Company (F. Alioto) - A portion of Wharf J- 10 would be reconstructed, 
including a new, pile-supported fish processing building for use by F. Alioto Fish Company 
within its leasehold on the western side of the project site. Approximately 5,600 square feet of 
the proposed wharf would be constructed over the water — mcluding an approximately 
1 ,400-square-foot wharf edge. The wharf would contain between 45 and 60 piles and a concrete 
deck. 10 The proposed fish processing building would contain a total of 17,312 square feet, 
including approximately 9,822 square feet on the "Wharf (ground floor) and mezzanine levels 
and 7,490 square feet of area on the first floor (see Figure 13, p. 29). Approximately 
4,200 square feet of the northern side of the building would be built on the portion of the wharf 
that is over the water and approximately 3,200 square feet would be built on land on the southern 
side of the building. In addition, a 10-foot-wide wharf deck would span the entire length of the 
north side of the proposed building over the Bay. The proposed building would be approximately 
32 feet in height, 1 1 measured according to the San Francisco Planning Code, with limited roof 
elevations of approximately 35 feet above the main entrances on the north and south elevations 
(see Figure 14, p. 30). This project element may require an existing pump station located at 
Jefferson and Leavenworth Streets to be upgraded in order to accommodate increased sewage 
from the proposed fish processing building. Upon project implementation, conditions at the 
pump station would be monitored and, if needed, the pump station would be upgraded to meet 
future water quality and utility standards. 

California Shellfish Company (Cal Shell) - A 1,714-square-foot concrete pad would be created 
over the existing solid fill along the north side of Fish Alley between Leavenworth Street and the 
F. Alioto leasehold (see Figure 15, p. 31). The concrete pad would be used to support Cal Shell's 



The exact number of piles depends on the foundation plans, which have not yet been completed. For the purposes 
of this EIR, a generic set of parameters, based on standard engineering assumptions, were used to determine the 
number of piles that would be needed for the proposed building. If the project uses wood piles, the project would 
require approximately 60 piles and fender piles. If concrete or steel piles are proposed, the project would require 
approximately 45 piles and fender piles. Because it has not yet been determined which existing piles are in good 
enough condition to support new construction, this EIR assumes that all existing piles, except the outer line of 
"marker" piles, would be removed (cut off) during demolition and that all new piles would be required to support 
new construction. 

Due to an error, the Initial Study mistakenly stated that the height of the new building would be approximately 
40 feet, with limited areas up to 44 feet tall. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342X 



27 



Wharf .1-10 Demolition and Improvements 




(80B|d BUBQ AJU8H pJBlplH) 

133H1S lHdOMN3AV3"l 



I- 

co 

z 
o 

CO 
DC 
LU 
Li_ 

u_ 

LU 



rH 

<U 
Li 
3 

OX) 

" toe 
c 



(L|.-rUBL(M) 

avou ss30ov aoativH 



28 




^ S - 

S oo ,r> 

o u< 



i 

c 



< 

oo 



_c 

"So 

00 

(U 
O 
O 



29 





rr 



1 1 

i j 




/ 1 
\ 





t3>< 



□ 




s- 
3 

04D 



"a 
c 

3 

■2 

"3 
S 

<u 
Q 

t? 
a 

I 



O 

U 

-C 

o 

4—* 

o 



o i2 



< -3 
o 

CU 

o 



to < 

£ E 
— o 



s > 



00 
GO 

a> 
o 
o 



93 

-a 

od 
o 

Oh t 

■4— > 

3 

O 
CO 



IT) 




UJ 
2 

-or 

< 

s 



(aoB|d cuua AjueH pjetpm) 
IS H1UOMN3AV31 



CD 
UJ z 

33 



I PS a 
2»a. <: 

O EC 



o Z OT $3 

2. ce E . 5= 

t-O JOQ 
11)11. JUd 
)< jjjj D 
UJ <T X 00 



ZOO R 5 
t- t N " Q 
W O < 1 -I 

x □ 5 £2 5 

UJ < U- CO 



CD 



T3 il. 

CD _ 

+■> DJ 

O C 

E o 

C «5 

O £ 

o ra 

(A 



.2 D) 




A3T1V 3QAH 









8:' _l 




_J 




UJ 








< 







u — 

3 "o 
OX) 

c 
£ 

o 
J5 

D_ 

CD 

■4—1 

a 

C 



31 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



existing fish handling facilities on the south side of Fish Alley. The concrete platform is 
proposed as an interim improvement to create an open air work area across the street, providing 
an off-street area for Cal Shell to load and unload trucks and general work area to carry out 
fishing industry-related operations without blocking circulation on Fish Alley. While the area of 
the footprint of the concrete pad would remain the same as provided in Cal Shell's current lease, 
the configuration of the footprint would be different. The concrete pad would be located inland 
of the former retaining wall, which would have been removed in Phase 2. 

Construction of these elements could begin after demolition. The estimated cost of proposed F. 
Alioto and Cal Shell improvements are not determinable at this time because no final plans are 
available. 

PHASE 4 - PORT DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS 

The Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan policies for the Fish Alley area in general place priority on 
preserving the small scale maritime-industrial character, and support of fish handling, processing 
and distribution, restaurants and bars oriented towards the fishing industry and fishing industry 
support services. Wharf J- 10 is located within Fish Alley Zone A, which restricts acceptable 
long-term uses to fishing industry, maritime office, boat repair and support services, public 
access, and retail (limited to sale of fish only). 

Within this policy framework, the Port has worked with the Fisherman's Wharf community to 
identify possible fishing industry-related uses that could be developed at the Wharf J-10 project 
site, for unleased portions of the site. All of the development options described below and shown 
in Figure 16 are subject to the availability of new sources of funding to support the development 
and management costs of new fishing industry facilities. All of the Phase 4 development options 
described below are presented at a conceptual level with little detail. Development of new fish 
handling facilities would depend on fishing industry market conditions and the demand for such 
new facilities. The actual development of these facilities would be subject to modification and 
refinement during detailed construction design and engineering, which may trigger the need for 
further environmental review. The Port development options for Wharf J-10 are described below, 
and are illustrated in Figure 16. 

(A) Public Fish Receiving Wharf at East End of Wharf J-10 - The Port could construct an 
approximately 1,800 square-foot fish receiving wharf open to general use by fishing boat 
operators on the east end of the project site, adjacent to an existing fish hoist at the terminus of 
Leavenworth Street and the concrete pad proposed by Cal Shell described in Phase 3, above. 
This wharf would be designed for use by fishing boat operators to transfer their catch from their 
boats to shore and constructed to allow for an enclosedjfish receiving building to be built on top 
of the deck at a later date. The receiving wharf would require pile-supported construction. At 
this time, it is unknown as to whether any of the existing piles at the east end of Wharf J-10 could 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xx.\\2O342X 



32 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 





*- 

s 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



support this structure. This EIR assumes that construction of the fish receiving wharf would 
involve removal of all existing piles and driving of new piles to support the proposed facility. 

(B) Public Fish Receiving Wharf at West End of Wharf J -10- The Port could construct an 
approximately 1,800-square-foot fish receiving wharf on the west end of the project site, adjacent 
to the access roadway to the Hyde Street Harbor. This wharf would be used by fishing boat 
operators to transfer their catch from their boats to shore. This wharf would be designed to allow 
future construction of (C) An Enclosed Fish Receiving Building on top of the deck. The receiving 
wharf would require all new pile-supported construction. 

(D) New Fishing Industry Building -The Port could reconstruct an additional portion of 
Wharf J- 10 and construct a new fish handling building atop the wharf between the proposed new 
F. Alioto building described in Phase 3, above, and the east end fish receiving wharf site 
described as Option A, above, and shown in Figure 16. Conceptually, the building would provide 
approximately 7,000 square feet of fishing industry space on one main level and a partial 
mezzanine level, similar to space use patterns in the existing Wharf J- 10 shed building, within a 
building height of approximately 20 feet. New piles, roughly comparable in number to those 
necessary for the wharf supporting the F. Alioto building, would be required. Any development 
of such a facility would depend in large part on successful negotiations and agreement with Cal 
Shell, because the building footprint would overlap Cal Shell's current leasehold, as well as the 
interim concrete pad proposed by Cal Shell in Phase 3, above. It is not known whether this 
fishing industry building would be developed by the Port, Cal Shell, or a future tenant. 

(E) Floating Boat Repair Dock at Wharf J- 10 - The Port could construct a system of floats and 
ramps for use by fishing boat operators to provide space for minor boat repairs and maintenance. 
At this time, two options for such type of improvements have been developed, which are shown 
in Figure 16. Either option would involve a structure supported by between about 10 and 20 new 
piles. 

One option is to construct a floating dock and ramp system in the space between the F. Alioto 
leasehold site and the east end fish receiving wharf described as Option A, above. Boats would 
be able to pull up next to the 125-foot-long dock, which would be connected to a ramp system 
allowing walking access to the east end fish receiving wharf. The dock edge would allow space 
for fishing boat operators to load and off-load gear and conduct minor boat maintenance work 
that is confined within the vessel. This dock and ramp system could be built compatibly with the 
fishing industry building concept described as Option D, above. 

(F) Floating Boat Repair Dock at Foot of Leavenworth Street - Another option would be to 
develop a working dock for fishing boats off the end of Leavenworth Street, adjacent to the 
existing fish hoist. The conceptual design, which was proposed by the members of the Crab Boat 
Owners Association, would consist of an access ramp from the end of Leavenworth Street to a 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

C:\203xxx\20342H 



34 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



length of floating dock that runs parallel to Wharf J- 10, as shown in Figure 16. This design 
would allow for vessels to berth on both sides of the floating dock and conduct minor fishing 
vessel maintenance that is confined within the vessel. As conceived, this concept could affect 
another fishing facility operated by Cal Shell located immediately to the east at Wharf J-9 (which 
is separate from the Cal Shell facilities at Wharf J- 10 and across the street on the south side of 
Fish Alley). Any plans to pursue this set of dock and ramp improvements would require 
discussions and agreement with Cal Shell. 



C. PROJECT SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES 

The project sponsor's objectives for the proposed project are: 

• Eliminate the existing public safety hazard created by the instability of the existing 
Wharf J- 10 substructure and building; 

• Appropriately document the cultural significance of Wharf J- 10 and any submerged 
archeological resources on the project site; 

• Support fishing industry uses by facilitating Wharf J- 10 tenants' reconstruction of a fish 
processing facility; and a staging area, storage, and loading area. 

• Continue to uphold the land use and urban design policies for the Wharf J- 10 site, as set 
forth in the Waterfront Land Use Plan, to promote Fishing Industry uses and facilities 
that are consistent with the area's identified architectural character, including marine food 
preparations and fishing vessel support and repair, retail (limited to sale of fish only), 
community facilities and public access. 



D. SCHEDULE, APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS AND GENERAL 
PLAN POLICIES 

This EIR will undergo a public comment period as noted on the cover, including a public hearing 
before the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR. Following the public comment period, 
responses to written and oral comments will be prepared and published in a Comments and 
Responses document. The Draft EIR will be revised as appropriate and, with the Comments and 
Responses document, presented to the Planning Commission for certification as to accuracy, 
objectivity, and completeness. No approvals or permits may be issued before the Final EIR is 
certified. 



APPROVALS 

The proposed project would be subject to review by all agencies with jurisdiction over the 
proposed project, including a determination that the proposed project is consistent with the 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



35 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition ami Improvements 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



General Plan and the Planning Code and the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan. In addition, the 
proposed project would require the following approvals to allow the demolition of Wharf J-10 
and possible subsequent reconstruction by the existing tenants and the Port: 

• The Port must select a demolition contractor for the project. 

• The Port must issue a demolition permit for the proposed demolition. 

• The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) must 
approve removal of the Wharf J-10 substructure, the necessary repair of the retaining 
wall, and stabilization of the water's edge with riprap. 

• The project may require one or more permits from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps) under Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act and/or Section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act, in connection with any new construction that created a new footprint beyond 
that of existing development, such as floating dock(s). 12 

• The RWQCB must authorize demolition/relocation of the groundwater monitoring 
well(s) and, if applicable, certify that any Corps-issued permit meets state water quality 
objectives. 

• The Port Commission must approve the F. Alioto proposed reconstruction. 

• The Port Commission must approve an agreement with Cal Shell to reconfigure its 
leasehold to occupy and use an area of the project site that extends parallel to the 
shoreline from the western boundary of its current leasehold to Leavenworth Street, 
between the retaining wall on the Bay side to the line of utility poles within Fish Alley. 
The amount of area occupied by this reconfigured leasehold would be the same as under 
their current lease. 

• The Port must issue a building permit for the proposed F. Alioto building/wharf and the 
concrete pad for Cal Shell's fish processing operations. 

• The Port Commission must appropriate funding and approve the design of any fish 
processing replacement structures for the remainder of the site not under lease to F. 
Alioto or Cal Shell. 

• BCDC must approve permits for any reconstruction, including design review of any 
replacement structure. 



Demolition of Wharf J-10, placement of new riprap, and new construction within existing footprints are exempt 
from the Section 10 permit requirement, and could be accomplished under the Port's existing Clean Water Act 
Section 401 "Conditional Authorization" from the RWQCB for maintenance work. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342H 



36 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



• The California State Lands Commission must approve a salvage/excavation permit for 
submerged shipwrecks, in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 6313(d), (e), 
and (f). 

REFERENCES: 

Unless otherwise noted, all references are available for review by appointment as part of the 
project environmental file at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File No. 
2001.0636E. 

Architectural Resources Group Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc., Fish Alley Study Area 
Historic Resources Evaluation and Design Recommendations. Prepared for the Port of 
San Francisco and the Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront Advisory group, September 2001. 

Port of San Francisco, Memorandum: Wharf J-10 Site Visit Made on March 29, 2004 and March 
31,2004, April 1,2004. 

Port of San Francisco, Fishery Wharf J-10 Emergency Engineering Study, Revised Draft, 
undated. 

Structus Consulting Engineers, Fishery Wharf J-10 Emergency Engineering Study, Revised 
Draft, August 17, 2000. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\20342H 



37 



Wharf J- 1 Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER III 



ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE 

The Initial Study concluded that the project would not have adverse land use impacts. Land use 
setting information is included in the EIR for informational purposes to orient the reader. 

The project site is along the northern edge of San Francisco's waterfront in the Fisherman's 
Wharf area adjacent to San Francisco Bay, an area that is dominated by the fishing industry and 
visitor-serving commercial land uses. Fisherman's Wharf, which is a major visitor attraction in 
San Francisco, encompasses approximately 374 acres of land and water generally bounded by the 
US Pier Head Line in the Bay to the north, Pier 35 on the east, Bay Street and Francisco Street to 
the south, and Municipal Pier (Aquatic Park) to the west. Most of the land (including the project 
site) is under the jurisdiction of the City and County of San Francisco, and roughly 10 percent is 
under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service as part of the San Francisco Maritime National 
Historical Park, which includes the Hyde Street Pier and its fleet of national historic landmark 
vessels, a visitor center on the ground floor of the Argonaut Hotel at the corner of Hyde and 
Jefferson Streets, a maritime museum and library, Aquatic Park, and Municipal Pier. 13 

Nearby neighborhoods include North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and Russian Hill. Fort Mason, 
which is just west of Aquatic Park and is approximately one mile to the west of the project site, is 
part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and is under the jurisdiction of the National 
Park Service. 

Historically, Fisherman's Wharf was a center for the fishing and maritime industries such as boat 
repair, maritime equipment supply, and fish processing and canning. Fisherman's Wharf is still a 
center of the San Francisco Bay Area's fishing industry and retains many fish handling and 
processing facilities, including 108,000 square feet of new fish off-loading, handling and 
distribution space at Pier 45, approximately one-fifth of a mile east of the project site. In addition 
to Pier 45, the Hyde Street Commercial Fishing Harbor (Hyde Street Harbor), which is adjacent 
to the project site, constitutes another major element of the Fisherman's Wharf commercial 
fishing center. The Hyde Street Harbor extends into the Bay just beyond the Outer Lagoon at the 



Municipal Pier was formerly part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, but responsibility for the pier was 
transferred to the Maritime National Historic Park in December 2003 (National Park Service (NPS) Visitor's 
Center, February 2004). 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



38 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 



northern terminus of Hyde Street Harbor Access Road (see Figure 1, p. 11). The Hyde Street 
Harbor opened in 2001 with a total of 190 berths. Fishing-related uses are also assembled around 
Fish Alley, such as F. Alioto's and Cal Shell's operations along Jefferson Street between Hyde 
and Leavenworth Streets and Coast Marine and Industrial Supply, Inc. at the northeast corner of 
Jefferson and Leavenworth Streets. In general, Jefferson Street, between Pier 39 and the 
San Francisco Maritime Museum National Historic Park (located at the western terminus of 
Jefferson Street roughly between Hyde Street and Van Ness Avenue), contains a high 
concentration of visitor-related commercial development. The north side of Jefferson Street is 
dominated by the fresh seafood restaurants, chowder houses, and crab shacks, for which 
Fisherman's Wharf is well-known. The buildings along this side of Jefferson generally range 
between one to two stories. In addition, ferry services and bay cruises launch from the piers lining 
the north side of Jefferson Street, particularly at Piers 39 and 41. Visitor-serving retail uses, such 
as t-shirt and souvenir shops, dominate the south side of Jefferson Street. Other prominent 
destinations along the south side of Jefferson Street include The Cannery, an historic San 
Francisco Structure of Merit, and the Argonaut Hotel, a designated City Landmark, located on the 
block bounded by Jefferson, Beach, Leavenworth and Hyde Streets. The Cannery, a brick 
warehouse that was originally built as a peach cannery in 1907, was renovated in the 1960s into a 
shopping complex featuring clothing boutiques, art galleries, offices, restaurants, and a jazz club. 
The Argonaut Hotel borders The Cannery to the west and is located in the renovated historic 
Haslett Warehouse, a four-story timber and brick building completed in 1909 by the California 
Fruit Canners Association. In addition to a hotel, which opened in 2003, the Argonaut houses the 
Visitors Center for the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. In contrast to the one- to 
two-story buildings along the north side of Jefferson Street, buildings along the south side tend to 
be taller, at three to four stories in height. 

The San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park is administered by the National Park Service; 
these facilities are roughly located at Hyde Street and the western end of Jefferson Street. In 
addition to Hyde Street Pier and Aquatic Park, the Maritime National Historic Park includes the 
San Francisco Maritime Museum, expansive green space with benches, trees, and walkways, and 
the terminus of the Powell-Hyde Cable Car line, as well as the building that now houses the 
Argonaut Hotel. The Hyde Street Pier Walkway exhibits historic boats, buildings, and other 
artifacts that are a part of Fisherman's Wharf maritime history. Aquatic Park is essentially a 
man-made cove enclosed by the broad curve of Municipal Pier just west of Fisherman's Wharf. 
Aquatic Park offers a location for swimming, canoeing, and similar types of water recreation. 

Ghirardelli Square, a designated City Landmark, is located just south, across Beach Street, from 
the Maritime National Historic Park. Ghirardelli Square is similar to The Cannery, in the sense 
that it is a former industrial building containing clothing boutiques, restaurants, art galleries, and 
a Ghirardelli Chocolate store. The building was built in the 1890s as a chocolate factory for 
Ghirardelli. In the early 1960s, Ghirardelli moved its chocolate factory across the bay to San 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xjoS203428 



39 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

Leandro and by the mid-1960s the building was restored and converted into its present use as a 
shopping complex. 

In addition to Ghirardelli Square, Beach Street, between Powell and Polk Streets, is a commercial 
corridor that continues the visitor industry uses of Fisherman's Wharf. Hotels, such as the 
Sheraton, the Courtyard Marriott, and Holiday Inn, are prominent features of Beach Street. Most 
of these hotels also contain ground-floor souvenir shops and restaurants. There are also several 
parking lots and garages along Beach Street. Exceptions to the visitor-serving commercial uses 
on Beach Street include the Longshoreman's Memorial Building at the southwest corner of Beach 
and Mason Streets and an office building at southeast corner of Beach and Hyde Streets. Joseph 
Conrad Square, located on a triangular lot bounded by Leavenworth, Beach, and Columbus 
Streets, is a small park containing benches, trees, and walkways. In addition, a small collection 
of low-scale (two- to three-story) residential buildings is located at the southwest corner of Hyde 
and Beach Streets. 

Along North Point Street, one block south of Beach Street, the high concentration of commercial 
uses typical of Jefferson and Beach Streets begins diminishing. Hotels, restaurants, and retail 
stores (i.e., North Point Center) are still the prominent uses between Mason and Leavenworth 
Streets. However, multi-family residential uses dominate the blocks west of Leavenworth Street 
and east of Mason Street. West of Leavenworth Street, the north and south sides of North Point 
Street contain low-scale (generally three-story) residential buildings. East of Mason Street, the 
south side of North Point Street is occupied by North Point Apartments — a large complex of four- 
story buildings containing 514 units. The Academy of Art College is located on the north side of 
North Point Street east of Stockton Street, across from the North Point Apartments. 

Bay Street continues the transition away from the dense visitor-serving commercial uses of 
Fisherman's Wharf and maintains the pattern of North Point Street with residential uses generally 
occupying the blocks west of Columbus Avenue and east of Powell Streets and commercial uses 
dominating the blocks between Columbus Avenue and Powell Street. The North Beach 
Apartments building is an exception to this pattern as it occupies two full blocks bounded by Bay 
and Francisco Streets and Mason Street and Columbus Avenue. North Beach Apartments, which 
is an affordable-housing complex, was recently renovated and now contains 341 dwelling units 
and ground-floor retail, including a Trader Joe's grocery store. 

Public uses in the Fisherman's Wharf area include the North Point Wet Weather Treatment 
Facility at Bay and Kearny Streets and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) Kirkland 
Bus Yard at the northeast corner of Bay and Powell Streets. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G\>03xxA203428 



40 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 



PLANS AND POLICIES 
PLANNING CODE (ZONING) 

The San Francisco Planning Code (Planning Code), which incorporates by reference the City's 
Zoning Maps, governs permitted uses, densities and the configuration of buildings in San 
Francisco. Permits to construct new buildings (or to alter or demolish existing ones) may not be 
issued unless either the proposed action conforms to the Planning Code, or an exception is 
granted pursuant to provisions of the Planning Code, or a reclassification of the site occurs. The 
project would require demolition and building permits from the Port, because it would include 
demolition of an existing building and wharf structure, and construction of a new fish processing 
facility and wharf structure. 

The project site is within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This district allows a maximum 
building height of 40 feet, and does not place a limit on building bulk. 

The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District. C-2 Districts emphasize 
compatible retail uses with a variety of goods and services to suit the longer-term needs of 
customers with greater latitude given to the provision of automobile-oriented uses. They provide 
convenience goods and services to both outlying and closer-in, denser residential areas of the City 
and they can provide comparison shopping goods and services to a citywide or regional market. 

The project site is also located in the Waterfront Special Use District (WSUD) No. 1, Maritime 
Uses and Related Accessory Uses, which contains land use provisions that overlay the C-2 
District as described in Section 240. 1 of the Planning Code. These provisions permit maritime 
and related accessory uses within WSUD No. 1 that require access to or use of the San Francisco 
Bay in order to function or operate in the normal course of business, including waterborne 
commerce, navigation, fisheries and recreation. 

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 

The San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) contains general policies and objectives to guide 
land use decisions, and contains some policies that relate to physical environmental issues. 
Sections of the General Plan that apply to the proposed project include the Urban Design 
Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, and the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan. 

In the General Plan's Urban Design Element, conservation policies call for preserving notable 
landmarks and areas of historic, architectural or aesthetic value, and promoting the preservation 
of other buildings and features that provide continuity with past development. The policies 
stipulate that older buildings that have significant historical associations, distinctive design or 
characteristics exemplifying the best in past styles of development should be permanently 
preserved. They call for more fully developed criteria for determination of historic significance 



Case No. 2001.0636E 4 1 Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 

G:\203xxnS203428 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

and design value, with attention both to individual buildings and to districts, and that efforts for 
preservation of the character of landmarks should extend to their surroundings as well. The 
policies state that preservation measures should not, however, be entirely bound by hard-and-fast 
rules and labels, because to some degree all older structures of merit are worthy of preservation 
and public attention; and therefore, various kinds and degrees of recognition are required. 

The General Plan's Recreation and Open Space Element calls for providing continuous public 
open space along the shoreline unless public access clearly conflicts with maritime uses or other 
uses requiring a waterfront location. For Fish Alley, it proposes maintaining the existing authentic 
character of Fish Alley north of and parallel to Jefferson Street, which supports a viable fish 
processing industry. It calls for improving public access along the wharves when compatible with 
public safety and fishing operations. The Recreation and Open Space Element also recommends 
maintaining and improving view corridors from public rights of way to fish processing areas, the 
outer lagoon, open waters of the Bay, and back to the City. Specifically regarding the project site, 
the Recreation and Open Space Element states that a pedestrian promenade should not be 
provided along the shoreline between Hyde and Jones Streets because of the fish processing 
activities along the Hyde Street Pier and Fish Alley; rather the promenade should continue along 
the north side of Jefferson Street. 

Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan 

The General Plan's Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan (Area Plan) calls for encouraging the 
retention and expansion of the commercial fishing and related activities in Fisherman's Wharf, 
and for maximizing views of the water and of waterfront activity. The Area Plan calls for 
providing a continuous system of parks, urban plazas, water-related public recreation, shoreline 
pedestrian promenades, pedestrian walkways and street greenways; and for providing as much 
public open space and peripheral access as is feasible in areas of maritime activity without 
interfering with the operation of this activity. It recommends preserving the historic maritime 
character of the Fisherman's Wharf area, and retaining older buildings of architectural merit or 
historical significance to preserve the architectural and historical character of the waterfront and 
ensure the compatibility of new development. The Area Plan calls for maintaining the fishing 
industry character in Fish Alley by preserving or increasing the level of fishing-related activities 
to the maximum feasible extent; for encouraging preservation and restoration of the maritime 
character of Fish Alley; and for providing a museum of the fishing industry and/or Wharf history 
in Fish Alley or elsewhere in the Wharf. Similarly, the Commerce and Industry Element includes 
maritime policies, one of which specifically promotes expansion of the fishing industry in the 
Hyde Street Harbor and Pier 45 area. 

The proposed demolition and reconstruction of the fish-processing building and Wharf J-10 
would be consistent with some, but not all, applicable General Plan policies. The General Plan 
contains many policies, which may address different goals. The proposed project would remove 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



42 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

a fish processing building that has been identified as having some historical importance (albeit 
one no longer suitable for fish processing, due to its condemnation and functional characteristics), 
and would not, therefore, be consistent with the urban design objectives and policies of the 
Northeastern Waterfront Plan. Impacts associated with this inconsistency will be discussed in the 
Cultural Resources section. However, reconstruction of the fish-processing building and a 
portion of the wharf would promote the goals of the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan for 
retaining the fish industry in Fish Alley, and the Recreation and Open Space Element goals of 
improving view corridors from public rights-of-way (Leavenworth Street) to fish processing 
areas, the outer lagoon, and the open waters of the Bay. 

The compatibility of the project with General Plan policies that do not relate to physical 
environmental issues will be considered by decision-makers as part of their decision whether to 
approve or disapprove the proposed project. Any potential conflicts identified as part of that 
process would not alter the physical environmental effects of the proposed project. 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT LAND USE PLAN 

The Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan (Waterfront Plan) establishes land use policy for all 
property under its jurisdiction, extending from the north end of Fisherman's Wharf south to India 
Basin, including the Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront Subarea. The Port adopted the Waterfront 
Plan in June 1997, with Fish Alley Amendments adopted in October 2001. The objectives and 
goals of the Waterfront Plan are consistent with those of the San Francisco General Plan. This 
project, therefore, will not be subject to a Planning Commission review for plan consistency, but 
will be subject to a Port Commission review for plan consistency. The Waterfront Plan calls for 
restoring and expanding Fisherman's Wharf as a working fishing port; attracting revenue- 
generating new uses to help support fishing industry and public activities; and providing space for 
the existing and future needs of other maritime activities at the Wharf. It also calls for continuing 
to integrate public, commercial, and maritime activities to preserve and enhance the diversity of 
uses at the Wharf; encouraging activities that will facilitate use of the area by local residents and 
diminish the Wharfs image as a "tourist-only" attraction; and rationalizing and enhancing the 
public access and open space program at Fisherman's Wharf. The Waterfront Plan encourages 
improvements that would enhance the waterfront's historic character, while also creating new 
opportunities for San Franciscans to integrate Port activities into their daily lives. The Waterfront 
Plan Fisherman's Wharf Acceptable Land Use Table identifies Fishing Industry, Ship Repair, 
Public Access, Retail Sales (only for fish), and Community Facilities as acceptable uses for the 
northern portion of Fish Alley, which includes Wharf J- 10. 

Fish Alley Amendments 

As amended by the Fish Alley Amendments, approved by the Port Commission in October 2001, 
the Waterfront Plan Development Standards for the Fish Alley Area are: 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



43 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

• Preserve the existing balance between fishing and commercial uses. 

• Preserve the small scale maritime-industrial character of Fish Alley by retaining the older 
buildings to the extent possible consistent with continuing fishing industry operations, 
and adapting them to the needs of and use by modern fishing-related businesses. In the 
event a building cannot be retained, then any replacement building must be consistent 
with the Waterfront Design and Access Element and maritime industrial character of the 
area. [See discussion of the Waterfront Design and Access Element, below.] 

• In the Fish Alley Area, continue to give priority to fish processing and distribution; 
restaurants and bars oriented towards the fishing industry, businesses and citizens in the 
area; chandleries; other businesses serving the fishing industry; and support services for 
the proposed Hyde Street Harbor. 

• Create a direct connection between the Hyde Street Harbor and Fish Alley. 

• Operate and manage activities to ensure compliance with all applicable environmental 
and water quality laws and regulations. Coordinate compliance efforts with the 
Fisherman's Wharf Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (EQAC). 

The Waterfront Plan's Waterfront Design and Access Element, in the Historic Resources section 
of its Design & Access Policies, inventories the waterfront's historic resources and presents Port- 
wide historic resources policies, along with policies for the most significant waterfront resources 
in areas including Fisherman's Wharf. It calls for nominating significant historic resources, 
between Pier 45 at Fisherman's Wharf to Pier 48 at China Basin, to the National Register of 
Historic Places; preserving and adaptively reusing significant historic resources where feasible; 
helping San Franciscans understand and enjoy their heritage by providing interpretive signage 
and informational displays about the waterfront's cultural and natural history; and requiring 
development of the waterfront to be compatible with historic resources. 

As a result of the Fish Alley Amendments, the Waterfront Design and Access Element also calls 
for recognizing the Fish Alley area as an architectural character district with area-specific design 
criteria (based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic 
Properties) related to maintaining views as well as massing, scale (i.e., limiting the height of new 
development within Fish Alley to two stories), site coverage, articulation and character of new 
development, as well as alterations and additions. The purpose of the architectural character 
district is to provide the Port with guidance for maintaining existing structures that contribute to 
the area's character, and approval of new construction, alteration, and demolition activities in the 
Fish Alley Area through the application of design criteria developed "in recognition of the area's 
unique character." The architectural character district includes all of the buildings in, the Fish 
Alley Area, including the Wharf J- 10 site. 



Case No. 200L0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



44 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

Specific design criteria for the Fish Alley Area incorporated into the Waterfront Design and 
Access Element by the Fish Alley Amendments include: 

Views 

• View corridors down Jones and Leavenworth Streets should be maintained by discouraging 
new development along these two streets within Fish Alley; 

• Existing views should be maintained by limiting the height of new development within Fish 
Alley to two stories; 

Massing 

• Articulate the massing of new development and additions so that they respect the building 
widths, heights, and simple massing and detailing of Fish Alley's existing buildings; 

• The footprint of new development and additions to existing buildings along Jefferson Street 
should extend the width of the lot with no side setbacks so that the continuity of the street 
facade wall is maintained; 

Scale 

• Appreciate the scale that the typical building heights of neighboring buildings contribute to 
the character of the streetscape by holding new development to two stories or less; 

Site Coverage 

• The front setbacks of new development along Jefferson Street should vary slightly in 
keeping with existing architectural pattern; 

• The placement of infill development on the interior of the Fish Alley Area should not 
encroach on the boundaries of the narrow alleyways, and should serve to enhance the 
delineation of the edges; 

Articulation 

• Opening patterns should be designed to communicate a human scale to pedestrians by 
articulating floor levels, or through glazing divisions; 

• New development or additions should respect existing patterns and proportions of 
alternating openings and solidity of walls; 

Character 

• Along Jefferson Street, avoid blank ground floor walls by providing views into the ground 
floor of buildings. Allow awnings or arcades to extend commercial building activities onto 
and over the sidewalk area. 

• Maintain the horizontal orientation of existing patterns throughout Fish Alley by aligning 
the horizontal elements of new development and additions with those of existing buildings; 

Materials 

• Varying building materials between existing buildings and additions is encouraged to 
visually distinguish new from old; 

• New development and additions should be constructed with simple, industrial materials that 
typify those found throughout Fish Alley; 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



45 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 



Signage 

• New signage within the Fish Alley Study area should be kept simple and small scaled. The 
design of new signage should be in keeping with the historic signs of Fish Alley. Painted 
wood signs hung off the buildings or painted directly on the buildings are encouraged. 
Neon signs are not appropriate for the Fish Alley Area. 

Site Furnishings 

• Site furnishings and landscaping should be kept minimal and simple, and should reflect the 
industrial and maritime character of the Fish Alley Area; 

Landscaping 

• New landscaping within the Fish Alley Study area should be limited to small scaled 
plantings in planter boxes, and should not include street trees; 

Service 

• Provide service access from interior alleys or north/south streets; 
Trash Enclosures 

• Use fences or other lockable enclosures to screen trash facilities from public view, and 
incorporate appropriate water quality protective measures to comply with all water quality 
environmental laws and regulations. 

Consistency with Fish Alley Design Criteria 

Architectural Resources Group (ARG), an architectural firm with expertise in historic 
preservation, was contracted by the Port to prepare the Fish Alley Historic Resources Evaluation 
and Design Recommendations in 2001 (ARG, 2001), which was the basis for the Fish Alley 
Amendments approved for the Waterfront Design and Access Element of the Waterfront Land 
Use Plan. In 2005, ARG conducted a Design Review (see Appendix B) to evaluate the 
consistency of the proposed reconstruction of the F. Alioto portion of Wharf J- 10 with the Fish 
Alley Design Criteria, based on the preliminary drawings submitted to the Port by F. Alioto 
(ARG, 2005). In its Design Review, ARG concluded that the drawings for the proposed 
reconstruction of the F. Alioto building were schematic and did not give enough information to 
complete a thorough evaluation. However, based upon the available information (Figures 13 and 
14 in Chapter II, Project Description), ARG identified certain inconsistencies between the 
preliminary design for the proposed reconstruction of this portion of Wharf J- 10 and the design 
criteria in the areas of views, massing, scale, site coverage, articulation, and character, as 
described below. 

The proposed reconstruction would affect the views in Fish Alley by altering the scale of 
development at Wharf J- 10. In its Design Review, ARG finds that the proposed building would 
not block existing view corridors. However, ARG concludes that, because the proposed 32-foot- 
tall building would have a mezzanine and a full second story, it would be taller than the existing 
18-foot-tall Wharf J- 10 building, and also taller than most surrounding structures in the Fish 
Alley area, and would thereby be more visible from Jefferson Street than the existing building. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G.\20}xxjS203428 



46 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

" A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

(As noted in the project description, the Initial Study for the proposed project erroneously stated 
that the plans for the proposed new F. Alioto building depicted a 40-foot-tall structure. In fact, 
the plans show a building 32 feet tall, with a raised portion of the parapet, to a height of 35 feet, 
in the center of the principal facade. Figure 17 presents a corrected version of Initial Study 
Figure 12, depicting the approximate height of the proposed new F. Alioto building as viewed 
from Jefferson Street.) 

In terms of massing, the design criteria recommend that the articulation of the massing of new 
development and additions be executed "so that they respect the building widths, heights, and 
simple massing and detailing of Fish Alley's [in this case, the warehouses] existing buildings." 
Although the new F. Alioto building would be "long and rectangular" like existing Fish Alley 
warehouses, it would not fully fill the existing footprint which helps define the character of Fish 
Alley. Further, the current schematic drawings for the building show intermediate roof sections 
above the first floor. ARG's Design Review concludes that these intermediate roofs "are not 
common to the undecorated shed warehouses of Fish Alley and are not compatible [with the 
design criteria]." 

Concerning site coverage, the criteria state that new construction "should not encroach on the 
boundaries of the narrow alleyways, and should serve to enhance the delineation of the edges." 
According to ARG's Design Review, because the footprint of the proposed building would be 
about half the size of the existing building, the replacement building would "interrupt the 
continuity of the fagade wall and would not maintain the edges of Leavenworth and Hyde 
Streets." As ARG's 2001 HRE notes, "since the removal of a structure can equally impact 
existing spatial patterns as the construction of a new building, new development should be sited 
so that the building mass serves to enhance the delineation of the alley edges" (ARG, 2001:24). 
However, the proposed building would not encroach on the boundaries of any existing alley or 
obscure any framed views. 

The design criteria concerning articulation state that "Opening patterns should be designed to 
communicate a human scale to pedestrians by articulating floor levels, or through glazing 
divisions" and "New development or additions should respect existing patterns and proportions of 
alternating openings and solidity of walls." According to ARG's 2001 HRE, "Since the majority 
of the buildings located in Fish Alley's interior are industrial sheds, the proportion of these 
openings differ from those on Jefferson Street. Expansive cargo doors occupy these facades [of 
buildings in Fish Alley]. The cargo doors typically span two-thirds of the height of the buildings 
and are evenly spaced approximately one and a half the width of the door itself." The drawings 
for the F. Alioto building show openings of the first and second floors that are the same size. In 
keeping with the Fish Alley warehouse type, ARG's Design Review states that the first floor 
openings should be larger than those on the second (mezzanine) floor. The size and uniformity of 
the proposed building's first and second floor openings is more typical of a commercial or office 
building, than an historic industrial warehouse. 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



47 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 




a) 



OJ 
CO 

o 
o 



CD 

a> 

CO 

E 



Q_ 
< 



3 



00 



S 
Q 



"fc. 

3 



3 
PQ 

1) 
on 
O 
& 
O 

iH 

Ph 

<U 
+-> 

I 

X 

O 

< *» 
tu 
<u 
H 

GO 

G 
O 

M 



o 

> 
a> 

C 

cd 

<D 

C 

CD 
CU 



2 £ 



3 



03 



o 



L 

t 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

Concerning character, the design criteria call for maintaining "the horizontal orientation of 
existing patterns throughout Fish Alley by aligning the horizontal elements of new development 
and additions with those of existing buildings." ARG's Design Review found that the new 
F. Alioto building would be "relatively tall ... by Fish Alley standards with stacked openings in 
the center and at either end of the main Fish Alley facade, which gives the building more of a 
vertical orientation than the existing Wharf J-10 building." However, the drawings do not 
indicate the exterior finish material. ARG notes, "Horizontal wood siding would be appropriate 
to enhance the building's horizontal orientation." 

ARG notes that, as with the question of exterior cladding, the preliminary drawings analyzed do 
not provide enough information to address consistency with several of the design criteria 
concerning signage, site furnishings, landscaping, and trash enclosures. Furthermore, criteria 
specifically applicable to Jefferson Street do not apply to the project. By virtue of its location, the 
building would necessarily be consistent with the criterion concerning service access from Fish 
Alley. 

As with the General Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with some, but not all, of the 
above Waterfront Plan and Fish Alley Amendment policies, including the Fish Alley Design 
Criteria, which reflect the Port's adopted design policy for the project site and vicinity. It should 
be noted that inconsistency with one or more of the design criteria does not necessarily result in a 
significant effect on the environment within the meaning of CEQA, because the criteria, while 
adopted in recognition of the "unique character" of Fish Alley, do not recognize the entirety of 
Fish Alley as an historical resource; rather, a smaller historic district potentially eligible for the 
California Register was identified (see Section III.B, Cultural Resources, p. 54). Physical 
environmental impacts of the project, including physical effects on the historic district that 
includes the project site, are evaluated in this document, in particular in Chapter III.B, Historical 
and Archeological Resources (and also in Chapter ni.C, Hazardous Materials and Hazardous 
Wastes). Potential inconsistencies with Waterfront Plan policies that do not relate to physical 
environmental issues would be considered by the Port Commission independently of the 
environmental review process, as part of the decision to approve or disapprove a proposed 
project. 

While an inconsistency with adopted design guidance could conceivably result in a significant 
effect on visual quality, in this instance the inconsistencies between the preliminary design of the 
F. Alioto building and the Fish Alley Design Criteria are not so great as to be deemed "a 
substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect" or to "substantially degrade or obstruct any 
scenic view or vista now observed from public areas." As stated in the Initial Study for the 
project (which, as noted, mistakenly evaluated the proposed new F. Alioto building as a 40-foot- 
tall structure, rather than the 32 feet in height actually shown in the plans), "because the building 
would sit approximately 150 feet back from Jefferson Street, the taller height of the proposed 
building would not appear to be dramatically different compared to the buildings along Jefferson 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G\203xx*203428 



49 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

Street," because the building would be visible only from directly south of the site, and even there, 
much of the structure would be obscured by existing buildings (see Figure 17, p. 48). 

As noted, the design of the new F. Alioto building is preliminary and only schematic drawings are 
available at this time. As a result, the Port would have to perform further design review of the 
proposed new building when the design has progressed to a more advanced stage. 
Implementation of Improvement Measure IM-1, p. 89, would ensure that the new F. Alioto 
building, and any other construction proposed at the Wharf J- 10 site, would be consistent, to the 
maximum extent feasible, with the Fish Alley Design Criteria. 

SAN FRANCISCO BA Y PLAN 

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) San Francisco 
Bay Plan (Bay Plan) and its San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (SAP), contain many 
policies for the San Francisco waterfront. The Bay Plan and SAP encourage maximum feasible 
public access to the Bay shoreline consistent with the proposed project and minimization of Bay 
fill. The SAP has policies and sets forth permitted uses on new or replacement fill along the 
waterfront. 

The SAP (as amended) in its Geographic Specific Policies and Recommendations for Hyde Street 
Pier through Pier 43, states that Fish Alley, located between the Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45, is 
the center of commercial fishing activity in San Francisco. Permitted Uses on New or 
Replacement Fill include Replacement of Existing Bay-Oriented Commercial Recreation; 
Breakwater; Berthing and Docking Facilities for Commercial Fishing Boats; Public Access; and 
Maritime. The SAP calls for improving and expanding Fish Alley facilities to serve the 
commercial fishing fleet, and maintaining and enhancing the area as a center for commercial 
fishing uses. It calls for permitting improved berthing, docking, and related activities for 
commercial fishing boats, including necessary sanitation facilities. The SAP recommends 
modernizing and improving the existing wharves and seawall lots for fish processing, marine 
repair and supply, and Bay-oriented commercial recreation with fish processing predominant on 
the Bay side of these parcels. 

The proposed project would be generally consistent with the SAP's policies that call for the 
modernization or improvement of the existing wharves and fishing facilities. 

BCDC Design Review Board 

The BCDC Design Review Board reviews proposed projects, with special regard to public access 
and associated issues of water-oriented development, including visual access to the Bay. The Bay 
Plan states that shoreline development should be consistent with BCDC Public Access Design 
Guidelines "to enhance the visual quality of development around the Bay and to take maximum 
advantage of the attractive setting it provides." The Plan also calls for bay front development "to 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxM03428 



50 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

enhance the pleasure of the user or viewer of the Bay and "to provide, enhance, or preserve views 
of the Bay and shoreline." Additionally, to enhance the Bay Area's maritime atmosphere, ports 
should be designed to permit public access and viewing of port activities by means of viewpoints 
that do not interfere with port operations and openings between buildings that permit views from 
nearby roads. BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines also state that all public access should be 
usable by as many people as possible, maintain and enhance visual access and the visual quality 
of the shoreline, and be compatible with natural features and adjacent development. 

REFERENCE: 

Unless otherwise noted, all references are available for review by appointment as part of the 
project environmental file at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File 
No. 2001.0636E. 

Architectural Resources Group, Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc., "Wharf J-10 Design 
Review," October 10, 2005. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxfi203428 



51 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

SETTING 

CEQA Section 21084.1 states that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the 
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the 
environment." An "historical resource" is defined as one that is listed in, or determined eligible 
for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition, a resource that (i) is 
identified as significant in a local register of historical resources, such as Article 10 and 
Article 1 1 of the San Francisco Planning Code, or (ii) is deemed significant due to its 
identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources 
Code Section 5024.1(g), is presumed to be historically significant "unless the preponderance of 
the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant." Finally, 
CEQA Section 21084.1 permits a lead agency to determine that a resource constitutes an 
historical resource even if the resource does not meet the foregoing criteria. A "substantial 
adverse" change is defined in Section 15064.5(b)(1) of the state CEQA Guidelines as "physical 
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings 
such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired." 

The project site, Wharf J-10, consists of an approximately 24,400 square-foot fish processing 
facility and a wharf substructure. The fish processing facility and wharf substructure were 
constructed in 1919 by the State Board of Harbor Commissioners, the State agency that was the 
predecessor to the Port of San Francisco, to accommodate fish packing departments, storerooms 
and waterside docking facilities, as well as some accessory office use. The building remained in 
fishing industry use until the Port condemned the structure in August 2000. In an historic 
resources survey prepared for the Port, Wharf J-10 has been identified to be a contributing 
resource to a potential California Register-eligible historic district. The proposed project would 
affect the historic fish processing facility and the wharf substructure. 

In addition to the architectural resources on the site, there is evidence to suggest that the project 
site may contain archeological resources, including prehistoric resources as well as remains from 
Gold Rush-period shipwrecks. Pile driving activities that would be part of the proposed project 
could affect these archeological resources. 

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

Rating Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance 

National Register of Historic Places / California Register of Historical Resources 

The National Register of Historic Places ("National Register"), administered by the National Park 
Service, is the official U.S. government list of properties that have architectural, historical or 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxM03428 



52 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

cultural significance at the national, state or local level. The National Register includes listings of 
buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, 
archeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Resources can be listed 
on the National Register under one or more of four criteria: Criterion A (association with 
important events); Criterion B (association with important persons); Criterion C (resources that 
embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, that represent 
the work of a master, or are otherwise architecturally distinguished); and Criterion D (resources 
that yield historical information - typically associated with archeological resources). 

The California Register of Historical Resources ("California Register"), maintained by the state 
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), uses criteria that are similar to those of the National 
Register, except that California Register criteria include specific references to California's history 
and cultural heritage. Resources listed or determined eligible for the National Register are 
automatically included in the California Register, which also includes certain State Historical 
Landmarks and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Other resources that may be eligible for the 
California Register, and which require nomination and approval for listing by the State Historic 
Resources Commission, include resources contributing to the significance of a local historic 
district, individual historical resources, historical resources identified in historic resources surveys 
conducted in accordance with OHP procedures, historic resources or districts designated under a 
local ordinance consistent with the procedures of the State Historic Resources Commission, and 
local landmarks or historic properties designated under local ordinance. 

In addition to historic significance, a National Register or California Register evaluation includes 
a determination of physical integrity, or the authenticity of an historical resource's physical 
identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of 
significance. Integrity consists of seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, 
workmanship, feeling, and association. 

Wharf J-10 is not listed in the National Register or the California Register, nor is it listed in the 
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Francisco County, which is 
maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The fact that Wharf J-10 is not 
listed on either the National Register or California Register does not necessarily indicate a lack of 
historical importance. 

Other Surveys 

The project site is not identified as a City Landmark under Article 10 of the Planning Code, was 
rated 1 (on a scale of -2 to 5) in the Planning Department's 1976 city wide survey of 
architecturally significant buildings, and is not included in Here Today, the Junior League's 1968 
book documenting the results of a five-year-long survey of historic buildings in San Francisco 
and San Mateo and Marin counties. In a 1997 cultural resources survey for the Planning 



Case No. 200L0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



53 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



Department's draft Fisherman's Wharf Area Plan, Wharf J- 10 was included in the list of 
identified resources and was determined to be a contributing building in the draft area plan 
(similar to the manner in which other area plans within the San Francisco General Plan have 
identified important architectural or historical resources). However, the Fisherman's Wharf plan 
was never adopted. 

Project Site 

In a September 2001 study commissioned by the Port for the Fish Alley area, the project site and 
two other buildings in the area, located at 2907-2909 and 291 1 Jones Street, were collectively 
identified as being potentially eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical 
Resources (California Register) as a small historic district (Architectural Resources Group 
(ARG), September 2001). The historic district was identified as significant due to its historical 
significance in San Francisco's fishing industry based on California Register criterion 1: 
resources associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to 
the broad patterns of local or regional history. Each of the three buildings is a contributor to the 
historic district. The Department of Parks and Recreation Building, Structure, and Object Record 
(DPR 523A form) for each building notes that it "contributes to the potential California Register- 
eligible district as it relates to the context of the development of the fishing industry in San 
Francisco." The district is shown in Figure 18. 

ARG noted that many of the buildings in the Fish Alley area "that relate to the context of the 
fishing industry and that are over 50 years in age have been altered to the extent that their 
individual integrity of materials, design, and workmanship has been impaired." However, the 
three buildings identified above, including Wharf J- 10, were found to meet the test of a district, in 
that they "retain enough integrity to convey a sense of time and place as well as . . . importance 
within the associated historic context of the fishing industry in San Francisco" (ARG, 2001:12). 
ARG found that "the district represents the boat building and fishing industries that developed 
along Fisherman's Wharf from the 1910s through the early 1940s" (ARG, 2001:12). 

The DPR 523 A form for Wharf J- 10 states that the State Harbor Commission built Wharves J-9 
and J- 10 for the fishing industry in 1919. The Biennial Report of the State Harbor 
Commissioners for the Fiscal Years Commencing July 1, 1918, and Ending June 30, 1920, stated 
that the building contained "offices and (fish) packing departments and store rooms, but no retail 
markets." The Wharf J-10 Building was designed by A.A. Pyle and built during two phases of 
construction. Sanborn Maps for San Francisco indicate that this building was continuously used 
for net storage and fish packing until it was condemned in 2000. The F. Alioto Fish Company 
has been a long-term tenant and its occupation of Wharf J-10 can be traced back to at least the 
1940s at this location. Additional tenants have included various other fish wholesalers (i.e., 
Standard Fisheries Corporation, Consolidated Fisheries, California Shell Fish Company), and 
Oswald Machine Works, distributors of diesel engines. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxM03428 



54 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



The other two buildings in the potential California Register-eligible historic district were built 
around the same time as the Wharf J-10 building. The northerly, single-story building, 
291 1 Jones Street, was constructed about 1920 as a boat building and repair shop. Today, it is 
used as storage space by the nearby Scoma's Restaurant. The larger, two-story building at 2907- 
2909 Jones Street, built in 1919, also housed boat building and repair, as well as the Crab Boat 
Owners Association, which continues occupancy at 2907 Jones Street to this day. The northern 
part of this building is currently used by Alioto's Restaurant for storage and food processing. 

Because Wharf J-10 has been identified as a contributor to a potential California Register-eligible 
district, the building and substructure are considered an historical resource under CEQA. 

In addition to being part of a potential California Register-eligible historic district, the building 
was identified, in the same report, to be part of larger architectural character district that 
encompasses the greater Fish Alley area, from Jones to Hyde Streets, north of Jefferson Street to 
the Bay. The architectural character district was identified because, "While the entire Fish Alley 
Study Area does not appear to meet National Register criteria as an historic district, due to the 
fact that many of the buildings in the study area have been substantially altered, the study area 
was found to have a distinct architectural character" (ARG, 2001:2). This architectural character 
district was officially adopted as part of the Port of San Francisco's Waterfront Land Use Plan 
under the Fish Alley Amendments, which are described in detail in Chapter 2, Project 
Description, of this EIR. The Fish Alley Amendments include design criteria that are based on 
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The design 
criteria, which are listed in Chapter III.A, Land Use, Plans, and Policies, are intended to maintain 
the distinctive fishing industry character of the area. The design criteria seek to preserve existing 
views and to regulate the massing, scale, site coverage, articulation, and character of new 
development, alterations, and additions. Because the larger Fish Alley area is not identified as an 
historical resource (either a district or individual resources), the design criteria are not applicable 
to the analysis of historical resource impacts. Therefore, project consistency with the design 
criteria is addressed in Chapter LU.A, on p. 46. 

Project Vicinity 

The San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park including the Hyde Street Pier (located at the 
west end of Fisherman's Wharf) and Aquatic Park, is administered by the National Park Service; 
these facilities are roughly located at Hyde Street and the western end of Jefferson Street. The 
Maritime National Historic Park also includes the San Francisco Maritime Museum, expansive 
green space with benches, trees, and walkways, and the terminus of the Powell-Hyde Cable Car 
line, as well as the building that now houses the Argonaut Hotel (formerly the Haslett 
Warehouse), a designated City Landmark. The Hyde Street Pier Walkway, immediately west of 
the project site, exhibits historic boats, buildings, and other artifacts that are a part of Fisherman's 
Wharf maritime history. Hyde Street Pier provides visitors with the opportunity to learn about 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



56 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



the nation's maritime heritage. The buildings on the pier are all one-story wood-frame structures 
related to maritime activity. A number of National Historic Landmark vessels are docked at the 
pier including: the Balclutha (1886), C.A. Thayer (1895), Eureka (1890), Alma (1891), Hercules 
(1907) and the Eppleton Hall (1914). 

The Haslett Warehouse, now the Argonaut Hotel, was listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places in 1974. The four-story timber and brick structure was built between 1907 and 1909 as the 
Haslett Warehouse for the California Fruit Canners Association. It was once the world's largest 
fruit and vegetable cannery and exemplifies the turn-of-the-century warehouses of 
San Francisco's northern waterfront. The National Park Service acquired the property in 1978 for 
inclusion in the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, established in 1988. The 
Argonaut Hotel is located south across Jefferson Street from Wharf J- 10, and currently, the 
building overlooks the one and two-story buildings on Jefferson Street and the more utilitarian 
structures along Fish Alley. 

Other notable historical resources in the project vicinity include The Cannery, a San Francisco 
Structure of Merit, 14 located on the block bounded by Jefferson, Beach, Ixavenworth and Hyde 
Streets, immediately southeast of the project site; and Ghirardelli Square, a designated City 
Landmark, two blocks southwest of the site. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The project site is sensitive for submerged prehistoric and historic archeological resources that 
are potentially California Register-eligible. Early prehistoric resources may lie within 
San Francisco Bay submerged by sediment deposition and the rise in sea-level since the last 
period of glaciation. Most of the early and middle Holocene-age land surfaces once available for 
human occupation in the Bay Area have been buried or submerged since 13,000 years B.P. 
(Before the Present). The sea level 6,000 years ago, for example, was approximately 20 to 39 
feet lower than present. At the beginning of the current era (c. 1 A.D.) the sea level was seven to 
13 feet lower than present, indicating that currently submerged sub-bottom soils within the 
project site may represent potential living surfaces dating up to as recently as 2,000 years ago. 
The land available for human occupation and exploitation 2,000 to 12,000 years ago was vastly 
more extensive than that of the San Francisco peninsula today extending as far west as the 
Farallon Islands. A number of Bay Area archeological sites support the theory of deeply buried 
evidence of early prehistoric occupation. For example, human skeletal remains (CA-SFr-28) 
dated at approximately 5,000 years B.P. were discovered nearly 75 feet below the existing surface 
during construction of the Civic Center BART station. That some of the early prehistoric sites 



Like City Landmarks, Structures of Merit are designated under a procedure governed by Article 10 of the Planning 
Code and recognize and encourage the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of resources that are not 
officially designated as landmarks and are not situated in designated historic districts. However, unlike with 
Landmarks, alterations to Structures of Merit are not governed by Article 10. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxM03428 



57 



Wharf 7- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



HI. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



were historically submerged is evidenced by the discovery of submerged shell middens and of 
Native American human remains in the Bay dredging conducted for the construction of Treasure 
Island. Approximately 50 percent of the prehistoric archeological sites in the Bay Area with 
dates greater than 3,000 years B.P. are found more than 13 feet below the surface. Early Paleo- 
Indian or Paleoamerican archeological sites although infrequently encountered are more highly 
significant to a wide range of current research topics and debates and, thus, eligible for listing to 
the California Register. 

In the historic period, the project site was not occupied until the construction of the existing wharf 
and structure in 1919. However, there is evidence that suggests that two Gold Rush period 
shipwrecks may be located within proximity of the project site: the Tonquin (sunk in 1849) and, 
possibly, the Carlota (sunk in 1850). The 1853 U.S. Coast Survey chart map of San Francisco 
shows the site of the Tonquin shipwreck at roughly the location of the project site. According to 
one expert, the Tonquin is the only Gold Rush era ship believed with some degree of certainty to 
have sunk in San Francisco Bay, as opposed to at anchor along the shore (Delgado, 2004). The 
State Lands Commission database has also indicated that the Samoset (sunk 1852) may be in the 
area of the project site as well. However, according to the same expert mentioned above, the 
Samoset is not located in the vicinity of the project site (Delgado, 2004). For this reason, the 
Samoset is not an expected resource within the potential area of impact. 

Submerged remains of either of the two shipwrecks may be eligible for listing in the California 
Register under Criterion A (association with a locally, regionally, and nationally significant 
historical event, the California Gold Rush); Criterion C (significance to Naval Architecture for 
information regarding wood ship construction in the period prior to the trade practice of 
developing pre-construction plans); and under Criterion D (significant maritime 
historical/archeological research value) as a contributor to the California Gold Rush Shipwrecks 
Thematic Group (Delgado, 1987), which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 15 
As noted, resources listed on the National Register are automatically included on the California 
Register. 



Although piles that were driven 85 years ago to construct Wharf J- 10 likely would have damaged any ship hulls 
present beneath the project site, the historical significance of shipwrecks is judged differently than that of buildings, 
and loss of physical integrity does not render a shipwreck ineligible for listing in the California Register as it might 
for a building. As archeological resources, shipwrecks by definition come as "damaged goods" - they have been 
dismembered, scattered, and "eroded" both by acts of nature and man (ship scavengers). However, shipwrecks are 
historically significant because of their association with events, persons, craftsmanship, technology, and 
historical/archeological information. For example, while most every Gold Rush Period storeship in San Francisco 
that has been encountered has been badly damaged by fires (the Apollo and many others), building foundations, 
piles (the General Harrison), tunnels (the Roma), box sewers (the Lydia), and other events, these wrecks remain 
historically significant because of their association with the Gold Rush period, San Francisco maritime history, 
specifics regarding a ship's career, information regarding 19th century ship construction, or their cargo. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

C:\203xxS303428 



58 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



IMPACTS 



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

A project is normally found to have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially 
disrupt or substantially adversely affect a property of historic significance. CEQA Section 
21084.1 states "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." An 
"historical resource" is defined as one that is listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the 
California Register of Historical Resources, one that is identified as significant in a local register 
of historical resources, such as Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code, or one that is 
deemed significant due to its identification in an historical resource survey meeting the 
requirements of Public Resource Code Section 5024. 1(g). A resource that is deemed significant 
due to its identification in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public 
Resource Code Section 5024.1(g), is presumed to be historically significant unless a 
preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. 

A "substantial adverse change" is defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 as "demolition, 
destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the 
significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired." The significance of an 
historical resource is "materially impaired," according to Guidelines Section 15064(b)(2), when a 
project demolishes or materially alters, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics of the 
resource that: 

• convey its historic significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion 
in, the California Register of Historical Resources (including a determination by the lead 
agency that the resource is eligible for inclusion in the California Register); 

• account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources adopted by local agency 
ordinance or resolution (in accordance with Public Resources Code Sec. 5020. l(k)); or 

• account for its identification in an historical resources survey that meets the requirement of 
Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1(g), including, among other things, that "the resource is 
evaluated and determined by the [State Office of Historic Preservation] to have a 
significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on DPR Form 523," unless the lead agency 
"establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or 
culturally significant." 

CEQA requires that the effects of a project on an archeological resource shall be taken into 
consideration and that if a project may affect an archeological resource that it shall first be 
determined if the archeological resource is an "historical resource", that is, if the archeological 
resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjX203428 



59 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



To be eligible for listing to the CRHP under Criteria A, B, or C, an archeological site must 
contain artifact assemblages, features, or stratigraphic relationships associated with important 
events, or important persons, or exemplary of a type, period, or method of construction (CEQA 
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(1) and (3) and (c)(1) and (2)). To be eligible under Criterion D, an 
archeological site need only show the potential to yield important information. An archeological 
resource that qualifies as an "historical resource" under CEQA, generally qualifies for listing 
under Criterion D of the CRHR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(3)(D). An archeological 
resource may qualify for listing under Criterion D when it can be demonstrated that the resource 
has the potential to significantly contribute to questions of scientific/historical importance. The 
research value of an archeological resource can only be evaluated within the context of the 
historical background of the site of the resource and within the context of prior archeological 
research related to the property type represented by the archeological resource (CA OHP, 
undated). 



IMPACTS 

Historic Architectural Resources 

Wharf J- 10 has been identified in an historic resources survey prepared for the Port to be one of 
three contributing resources that collectively are potentially eligible for listing on the California 
Register as an historic district, and Wharf J- 10 is, therefore, considered an historical resource 
under CEQA. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the building and 
substructure that comprise Wharf J-10. Demolition of this historical resource would be 
considered a significant impact. In addition, because the historic district is already small, 
demolition of the one of the buildings would have a substantial adverse effect on the eligibility of 
the historic district for the California Register. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a 
significant adverse impact to historical resources, both in terms of the effect on the individual 
building and substructure (demolition) and the effect on the district (substantial alteration). As 
described further in Chapter TV, Mitigation Measures, p. 78, the Port retained Architectural 
Resources Group, which prepared archival photographs and documentation of Wharf J-10, which 
would somewhat reduce the severity of the impact. However, the impact of demolition would be 
considered significant and could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 

While the existing historic district that is identified as potentially eligible for the California 
Register would be substantially affected by the demolition of Wharf J-10 through the loss of its 
largest contributing resource, the two other contributing resources - the two buildings at 2907- 
2909 Jones Street and 291 1 Jones Street -would remain and would still be considered historic 
resources. Because the existing potential district consists of non-contiguous resources (Wharf J- 
10 is a block away from the other two district contributors), and because Wharf J-10 occupies 
twice the area of the other two contributors together (the paved alley between the non-contiguous 
resources is not identified as a contributory element to the potential district), the loss of Wharf J- 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\2O3xxx\20H28 



60 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



10 would "materially alter, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics of [the existing 
potential historic district] that convey its historic significance and that justify its inclusion in, or 
eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register of Historical Resources." 

However, the remaining two buildings in the potential California Register-eligible district, at 
2907-2909 and 291 1 Jones Street, would remain and, while adversely affected by the loss of 
Wharf J- 10, would still be potentially eligible for the California Register as historically related 
buildings or an historically and functionally related unit, 16 although not as an historic district. As 
noted in the Setting, each of these two buildings was constructed at approximately the same time 
as Wharf J-10, each "relates to the context of the development of the fishing industry in San 
Francisco," and each retains sufficient integrity to support the "sense of time and place" in the 
context of the development of San Francisco's fishing industry. Therefore, the two buildings are 
considered historical resources under CEQA, and the effects of new construction on these 
buildings must be considered. 

Should construction proceed on Phase 3 of the project, as described in Chapter II, Project 
Description, the two Jones Street buildings could be adversely affected. In particular, 
construction of a two-story, approximately 32-foot-tall building, as proposed by F. Alioto, would 
be inconsistent with the height and bulk of the Jones Street structures, potentially resulting in 
incremental diminution or loss of those buildings' integrity 17 with respect to setting and feeling, 
and association (with regard to the historic evolution of the small industrial scale of Fish Alley). 
However, the new construction would not affect the two buildings' integrity of location, design, 
materials, and workmanship. Given that, and given the one-block separation of the Jones Street 
buildings from the Wharf J-10 site, the potential impact on these resources would be sufficiently 
attenuated as to not rise to the level of significance, in that the new construction would not 
"materially alter, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics of [the Jones Street 
buildings ] that convey [their] historic significance and that justify [their] inclusion in, or 
eligibility for inclusion in, the California Register of Historical Resources." 

New construction, as proposed by F. Alioto in the preliminary schematic drawings available (see 
Figures 13 and 14, pp. 29 and 30), would result in indirect adverse effects on nearby historical 



"Historically related buildings" refers to a "grouping of related buildings" that is a category of historical resources 
eligible for listing (along with individual buildings and historic districts) as State Landmarks, according to the state 
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2001 publication "How to Nominate a Property as a California Historical 
Landmark or California Point of Historical Interest." Available on the internet at: 

http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/13%201andmarks%20and%20points.pdf . An "historically and 
functionally related unit" is a sub-category of "building," one of five classifications of resources for purposes of 
listing on the California Register, according to OHP's 2001 publication, "How to Nominate a Resource to the 
California Register of Historical Resources. Available on the internet at: 

http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/07%20cal%20reg%20how%20to%20nominate.pdf . 
Under both National Register and California Register guidelines, a property must maintain sufficient historical 
integrity to be eligible for the register(s). Setting, feeling, and association are three of the seven aspects of integrity, 
the other four of which are location, design, materials, and workmanship. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xjafQ03428 



61 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



resources. Because of the proximity of the proposed project to the historic resources listed above, 
the project, both the demolition and construction of a new building, have the potential to affect 
the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, particularly resources at the Hyde Street Pier, 
immediately west of Wharf J- 10, and the Argonaut Hotel (historic Haslett Warehouse) on 
Jefferson Street. 

The proposed construction of the new two-story F. Alioto structure would affect views to and 
from these resources. However, the impacts would not be material, but rather would be more 
visual in nature, and would not represent a substantial adverse change. Because the new F. Alioto 
building, as currently proposed, would be taller than surrounding structures and the current Wharf 
J- 10 building, and because the other buildings along Fish Alley and Jefferson Street are generally 
10 to 20 feet in height, the massing and of the proposed new building would have a negative 
visual impact on, and affect the setting of, the historic structures of Hyde Street Pier. 
Additionally, because the new F. Alioto building, as currently proposed, would be taller than any 
of the buildings between Jefferson Street and the water, the new building would block some 
views to and from upper floors of the historic Argonaut Hotel. However, in both the case of the 
Hyde Street Pier buildings and the Argonaut Hotel, this impact would be considered adverse, but 
not significant, in that it would not "materially impair" the significance of the buildings at Hyde 
Street Pier or the Argonaut Hotel. Effects on the historic setting of the Cannery would be similar 
to those on the Argonaut Hotel building, although somewhat attenuated, given that the Cannery is 
diagonally southeast of the Wharf J- 10 site; these effects would likewise be less than significant. 

Effects on the historic setting of Ghirardelli Square would be minimal, given the distance from 
the Wharf J-10 site, and would not be significant. 

Improvement Measure JJVI-1 in Chapter rV, p. 89, would reduce the severity of above-noted less- 
than-significant impacts, in that it would result in new construction substantially in compliance 
with the Fish Alley Design Criteria. According to ARG, although the Fish Alley Design Criteria 
"were developed for the larger Fish Alley area, the buildings remaining in the smaller historic 
district exhibit [many] of these same characteristics, but also have historical value," and 
compliance with the design criteria would "minimize[e] the project impacts." 

Alternative C, p. 93, which would entail construction of a single-story building, would also 
minimize the above-noted less-than-significant impacts with respect to view obstruction. 

Archeological Resources 

As discussed in the setting, the project site may contain remains from two Gold Rush period 
shipwrecks, the Tonquin and the Carlota. These shipwrecks may be eligible for listing on the 
National Register of Historic Places as part of the California Gold Rush Shipwrecks Thematic 
Group. As noted, resources listed on the National Register are also listed on the California 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xvtQ03428 



62 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. CULTURAL RESOURCES 



Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, these shipwrecks are considered to be potentially 
historical resources. Pile driving, which may be required for construction of the new wharf 
superstructure, could crush or otherwise damage any existing remains and, therefore, could result 
in significant adverse effects on these submerged archeological resources. Mitigation Measure 
EIR-2, p. 79 in Chapter IV, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to other historical resources in the 
Fisherman's Wharf area because there are no other projects proposed in the area that would affect 
historical resources. Furthermore, many of the important historical resources in the vicinity have 
been successfully renovated for adaptive reuse. 

Similarly, the project would not contribute to significant cumulative effects on maritime 
archeological resources, in that no other projects are proposed in the vicinity that would 
potentially adversely affect known Gold Rush era shipwrecks. 



REFERENCES: 

Unless otherwise noted, all references are available for review by appointment as part of the 
project environmental file at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File No. 
2001.0636E. 



Architectural Resources Group Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc., Fish Alley Study Area 
Historic Resources Evaluation and Design Recommendations. Prepared for the Port of 
San Francisco and the Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront Advisory group, September 2001. 

California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin No. 5. 

Delgado, Jim, Executive Director, Vancouver Maritime Museum, personal communication, 
July 15, 2004. 

Delgado, Jim, The Maritime Connotations of the California Gold Rush: Historical Context Study, 
California Gold Rush Shipwreck Thematic Group National Register of Historic Places 
Study, July 1987. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:X203xx*203428 



63 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

This assessment focuses on the potential public health effects associated with exposure to 
hazardous materials during demolition of the existing substructure and fish processing building at 
Wharf J-10, removal of the existing retaining wall, and construction and operation of the potential 
tenant and Port improvements. The potential to encounter hazardous materials is based on review 
of the existing hazardous building materials survey conducted for the structures; an 
environmental regulatory database search to identify permitted hazardous materials uses, 
environmental cases, suspect hazardous materials uses, and spill sites in the vicinity of the 
existing wharf (Environmental Data Resources [EDR], 2005); and review of information 
regarding soil and groundwater conditions at the nearby former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal at 
440 Jefferson Street (Figure 1, p. 11) and other nearby environmental cases. This information is 
used to assess the potential to encounter hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater and to 
encounter hazardous building materials during demolition of the existing structure. Regulatory 
requirements related to the potential to encounter hazardous materials during construction as well 
as hazardous materials handling during operation of the potential tenant or Port improvements are 
also summarized. 

SETTING 

Hazardous materials, as defined in Section 25501(h) of the California Health and Safety Code, 
are materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, 
pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if 
released to the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials have been and are commonly 
used in commercial, agricultural and industrial applications as well as in residential areas to a 
limited extent. A waste is any material that is relinquished, recycled, or inherently waste-like. 
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 4.5, Chapter 11 contains regulations for 
the classification of hazardous wastes. A waste is considered a hazardous waste if it is toxic 
(causes human health effects), ignitable (has the ability to burn), corrosive (causes severe burns or 
damage to materials), or reactive (causes explosions or generates toxic gasses) in accordance with 
the criteria established in Chapter 11, which also lists specific hazardous wastes and identifies 
specific waste categories including Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous 
wastes, non-RCRA hazardous wastes, extremely hazardous wastes, and special wastes. If 
improperly handled, hazardous materials and wastes can result in hazards to public health and the 
environment if released to the soil, groundwater, or air. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER 

The potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil and groundwater during construction of the 
potential tenant and Port improvements as well as removal of the retaining wall was evaluated 
through review of the site fill history; historic and current land uses in the vicinity; permitted 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



64 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



HI. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

hazardous materials uses; suspect hazardous materials uses; and environmental cases identified in 
the vicinity of the project; and review of soil and groundwater conditions at nearby sites including 
the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal, located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. 

Historic Land Uses and Fill Materials 

The project site is located in an area that was originally part of the shallow margins of the Bay. 
Beginning in the 1850s, the area was gradually filled. The fill materials historically used in San 
Francisco commonly include materials excavated from nearby hills as well as human-made debris 
that could include contaminants. In addition, rubble from destroyed buildings, including 
hazardous materials that were used in the buildings, was commonly incorporated into the fill and 
built upon during reconstruction after the 1906 earthquake and fire. The post-earthquake fill 
commonly contains lead, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), heavy metals, oil and 
grease and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). PAHs and lead identified in soil at the nearby 
former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal are attributed to the fill materials by Exxon Mobil's consultant 
(TRC, 2004). The retaining wall that the wharf is located on was constructed between 1880 and 
1893. 

The area around the project site has historically been used for a variety of industrial uses 
including petroleum storage, power production, and lead smelting. Based on the site history 
prepared for the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal (TRC, 2003; TRC, 2004; and Ganguli, 2004), 
historic land uses that involved the use of hazardous materials in the immediate vicinity of the 
proposed project include: 

• The former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal with petroleum storage tanks, located across Fish 
Alley from the project site, from sometime before 1935 through about 1946, and 
thereafter by the still-active General Petroleum Marine Diesel Bulk Storage Facility. 
Diesel pipelines from this facility to the fuel docks at the end of Hyde Street traverse 
Wharf J-10; 

• Historic petroleum tank farms located on the northwest, northeast, and southeast corners 
of the intersection of Leavenworth and Jefferson Streets for various periods between 
1935 and 1966; 

• Gasoline and oil fuel pumps at the end of Hyde Street noted on Sanborn maps from 1948 
through 1990; 

• Historic pipelines running along the water line from an historic Shell Oil lease at the 
northeast corner of Jefferson and Leavenworth Streets; and 

• The Shelby Smelting and Lead Works noted on an 1886 Sanborn Map and Equitable Gas 
Light Company (with two gas holder above ground storage tanks and a coal wharf with a 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203jooKZ03428 



65 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



41,000 gallon crude oil above ground storage tank ) noted on an 1899 Sanborn map, 
located across Jefferson Street to the south. 

Based on these historic uses in the vicinity of the proposed project, there is the potential to 
encounter petroleum products, manufactured gas plant residues (containing PAHs, petroleum 
hydrocarbons, benzene, cyanide, metals, and phenols), and lead or other metals in the soil and 
groundwater at the project site. 

PERMITTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USES, ENVIRONMENTAL CASES, 
AND SUSPECT LAND USES 

An environmental database review (EDR, 2005) was conducted to identify permitted uses of 
hazardous materials, environmental cases, suspect land uses, and spill site where soil and/or 
groundwater contamination may be present within a specified distance from the project site. The 
distances searched varied, depending on the type of regulatory database reviewed, and are 
consistent with the search distances specified in ASTM Standard E 1527 - Phase I Environmental 
Site Assessment Standard. A description of each database reviewed and the results of the 
database are provided in Appendix C of this EER. In summary, the primary concern related to 
historic land uses involves the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal, where decades of use for fuel 
storage and distribution in aboveground and underground tanks and piping has resulted in 
groundwater contamination. This and other hazardous materials issues are discussed below and 
in more detail in Appendix C. 

Permitted Hazardous Materials Uses 

Because the use and handling of hazardous materials at currently permitted sites are subject to 
strict regulation, the potential for a release of hazardous materials from these sites is considered 
low unless there is a documented chemical release, in which case the site would also be tracked in 
the environmental databases as an environmental case. Permitted sites without documented 
releases are nevertheless potential sources of hazardous materials to the soil and/or groundwater 
because of accidental spills, incidental leakage, or spillage that may have gone undetected. Sites 
other than the GP Resources Bulk Terminal and fuel dock at Hyde Street Harbor in the project 
vicinity appear to involve primarily photo processing chemicals and past disposal of 
contaminated soils, and do not appear to pose a major public health concern with regard to the 
project site. Further information is provided in Appendix C. 

Environmental Cases and Suspect Land Uses 

Environmental cases identified by the environmental database review are those sites suspected of 
releasing hazardous materials or that have had cause for hazardous materials investigations and 
are identified on regulatory agency lists. Identification of hazardous materials at these sites is 
generally due to site disturbance activities such as removal or repair of an underground storage 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\103xxM03428 



66 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

tank (UST), a release of hazardous materials, or excavation for construction. Historic permitted 
uses such as former coal gas sites and historic UST sites are also considered permitted hazardous 
materials uses, but may be sources of contamination because these historic uses of hazardous 
materials were not well regulated. Therefore, historic UST sites and manufactured gas plant sites 
are considered "suspect land uses" for this analysis and discussed in this section. There were no 
spills reported at the existing Wharf J- 10 site, therefore spill sites are not discussed further. 

Former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal 

The former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal was located across Fish Alley from the project site, to the 
south, at 440 Jefferson Street. This site was identified in the leaking underground storage tank 
and Cortese databases indicating that a release from a UST has occurred. The site is also 
identified in the CA SLIC database indicating that groundwater contamination has occurred and 
the case is under the regulatory oversight of the San Francisco Bay Region of the California 
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The database review indicates that a release of 
diesel has occurred and groundwater quality has been affected. 

The site is currently an active General Petroleum Marine Diesel Bulk Storage Facility that 
dispenses marine diesel from two 20,000-gallon above ground storage tanks to a fueling dock at 
the end of Hyde Street via underground piping. A 4-inch diesel pipeline begins at the former 
Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal, extends beneath Wharf J- 10, and terminates at the fuel dock (RWQCB, 
2005a). 

Soil Quality and Remediation. Soil at the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal is known to contain 
petroleum hydrocarbons including total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel, benzene, 
toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) (TRC, 2004; TRC, 
2005). Lead and the PAHs naphthalene and pyrene have also been identified in the soil and are 
suspected to be associated with the fill materials used at the site. The lead could also possibly 
result from the smelting facility formerly located to the south of the project site. MTBE that has 
been identified in the soil is attributed to off-site sources because the Mobil Oil operations ceased 
before MTBE was used in gasoline, and subsequent operation by General Petroleum has not 
involved the storage of gasoline. 

Three tank removals or soil excavations have occurred in the 1980s and 1990s including removal 
of gasoline USTs in 1986 (no soil removed); removal of 75 cubic yards of soil in 1990 following 
a release of several hundred gallons of petroleum to unpaved soil within the bermed tank yard at 
the terminal; and removal of approximately 980 cubic yards of affected soil following removal of 
diesel above-ground storage tanks and removal of 320 cubic yards of soil for slurry wall 
installation in 1994 and 1995 (this soil was characterized as a California hazardous waste based 
. on soluble lead concentrations and arsenic). 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjtS203428 



67 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

As part of investigations at the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal, soil samples were collected 
during installation of a groundwater monitoring well (AW-9) at the project site in 1992. Total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel was identified at 330 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) in a soil 
sample from the 8 foot depth, near the water table, but was not detected in the shallower soil 
sample from 4 feet. Thus, the upper limit of the contamination is between 8 feet and 4 feet below 
grade, which is deeper than would be excavated during demolition of the Wharf J- 10 building, 
wharf, and retaining wall, 18 and the concentration detected is below the environmental screening 
level of 500 mg/kg of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (RWQCB, 2005b). Total petroleum 
hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel have been identified at maximum concentrations of 2,100 
mg/kg and 4,100 mg/kg, respectively, in soil samples from monitoring wells installed in Fish 
Alley to the south of the project site. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were also 
detected in these soil samples. 

Groundwater Quality and Remediation. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells have been 
installed to investigate groundwater quality at the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal. These 
include well AW-9 installed at the project site, which was monitored quarterly from 1992 through 
2001. Since that time, however, no access to the on-site well has been available because of 
deterioration of the pier. Petroleum hydrocarbons including total petroleum hydrocarbons as 
gasoline and diesel, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and MTBE have been identified in 
the groundwater and free product 19 has been observed on the groundwater in some of the site 
monitoring wells. The most recent groundwater sample from Monitoring Well AW-9, collected in 
June of 2001, contained 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel, 
but no other petroleum hydrocarbons, including MTBE, were detected. The most recent sample 
analyzed for PAHs, collected in June 2000, contained detectable levels of anthracene and benzo 
(a) anthracene. The depth to groundwater in Monitoring Well AW-9 is historically 5 or more feet 
below ground surface (TRC, 2004), and is a minimum of 4.5 feet below the surface at its 
shallowest points. 

Groundwater remedial activities have been conducted at the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal 
since 1994 to prevent migration of petroleum hydrocarbons from the site vicinity to the Bay. 
These activities include: 

• removal of contaminated soil, which would otherwise have been a continuing source of 
groundwater contamination, in connection with installation of a 5-foot wide by 6-foot deep 
slurry wall around the Mobil leasehold site perimeter in 1995 (required for structural 
purposes and located primarily above the water table, so with only incremental effect as a 
groundwater barrier); 



No foundation design is available for the potential tenant improvements under Phase 3 of the project or the potential 
Port improvements under Phase 4. 

Free product is petroleum fuel, such as gasoline or diesel, that is not dissolved in the groundwater but floats on the 
groundwater surface or sinks through the groundwater. 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

G:\203xxSQ03428 



68 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



• installation of a temporary 2-foot wide by 8-foot deep groundwater recovery trench along the 
northern Mobil site perimeter, and extraction of 5,000 gallons of groundwater produced 
during soil excavation activities in 1995; 

• Quarterly pumpout of wells with observable free product from 1997 until 2000; and 

• Installation of "soakies" (petroleum-absorbent socks placed in wells and replaced regularly) 
for product recovery since 2000 in wells with observed product. 

These remedial activities have resulted in a reduction of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in 
the Mobil wells over time as well as a reduction in free product thickness from 1.19 feet in 1992 
to a sheen in 2004. A sample of Bay water collected from north of the former Mobil Oil Bulk 
Terminal in 1990 did not contain detectable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and there was no 
observable sheen of hydrocarbons on the water surface. Elevated levels of total PAH have been 
identified in sediment at the south side of Pier 47 (the fishing boat pier across the Outer Lagoon 
from Wharf J-10). 20 However, these elevated levels have not been attributed to the former Mobil 
Oil terminal. (Elevated PAH concentrations in near-shore sediment are frequently associated 
with creosote-treated wood pilings and/or historic industrial activities.) 

Plans for Further Remediation. The August 2004 Initial Study analyzed the project's impacts 
and included a discussion of a petroleum release into the soil and groundwater from the former 
Mobil facility. Under the regulatory authority of RWQCB, Exxon Mobil, 21 the identified 
responsible party, was in the process of investigating and characterizing the extent of the 
contamination, and was charged with submitting draft remedial action plan options. Given the 
RWQCB 's regulatory process to determine the appropriate remedial action to be taken to meet 
applicable soil and groundwater standards, the Initial Study concluded that there were no 
significant impacts associated with the project regarding hazardous materials. Further 
developments have occurred since the publication of the Initial Study, which are reported for 
informational purposes. 

In August 2004, Exxon Mobil's consultant, TRC, issued its Environmental Risk Assessment and 
Feasibility Study (RA/FS)(TRC, 2004). The RA/FS found that significant human health and 
environmental risks resulting from the presence of petroleum contamination beneath the Wharf J- 
10 area are limited to potential ecological/water quality impacts from migration of contaminated 
groundwater through the retaining wall to the Bay. The human health risks evaluated were found 
to fall below threshold levels, with very limited potential for human exposure, although potential 
impacts from soil vapor intrusion into buildings have not been fully evaluated. 



Samples taken in April 2005 revealed PAH levels of between 21 and 33 parts per million (ppm), compared to 
background levels of 3.4 ppm in San Francisco Bay. Priya Ganguli, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control 
Board, e-mail communication to Carol Bach, Port of San Francisco, July 8, 2005. Available for review by 
appointment as part of the project environmental file at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project 
File No. 2001. 0636E. 

Mobil Oil Corp. and Exxon Corporation merged in 1999 and became Exxon Mobil Corporation. 



Case No. 200L0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



69 



Wharf 'J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

The RA/FS also presents analysis of several potential remedial alternatives for the groundwater 
and recommends two remedial actions, depending on whether the Wharf J-10 building is or is not 
demolished: 

1) If the building is demolished - Construct a slurry wall just inland of the retaining wall to 
prevent migration of petroleum to the Bay, enhance biological degradation of petroleum 
hydrocarbons through application of oxygen-releasing compounds, and continue passive 
removal of product from wells by soakies. The slurry wall would be designed in a manner 
consistent with the existing riprap and retaining wall improvements in place. 

2) If the building is not demolished: Construction of the slurry wall would be difficult and 
potentially infeasible because the building limits access to the alley where excavation 
would occur. Consequently, the RA/FS recommends that no slurry wall would be 
constructed, and remediation would occur through the enhanced biological degradation and 
passive product removal of petroleum product as described above. 

In its comments on the RA/FS, the RWQCB has stated that it will require that groundwater 
contaminant concentrations meet criteria established for surface water and will require additional 
sampling to further evaluate the extent of constituents of concern in the groundwater and 
determine the best placement for the slurry wall (RWQCB, 2005). In addition, the RWQCB has 
stated that there is strong evidence that contaminated groundwater could be discharging to the 
Bay and that the RA/FS will need to evaluate potential impacts to human receptors in the bay 
(e.g. swimmers) as well as effects on ecological resources. ,A soil vapor study is also required to 
evaluate the potential for vapor intrusion into buildings and to address potential current and future 
effects on indoor air, including the potential for build-up of methane. Quarterly groundwater 
sampling, including water level monitoring and analysis of groundwater samples, as well as 
inspection and documentation of surface water conditions adjacent to riprap along Wharf J-10 is 
also required. If future remediation, demolition, or construction activities require excavation or 
work within the sediment north of the seawall, the RWQCB may require collection of 
environmental samples. 

In response, Exxon Mobil has submitted a work plan for soil vapor, soil, and groundwater 
sampling at 1 1 locations to the south of Wharf J-10 (TRC, 2005). Upon completion of the 
proposed work, Exxon Mobil will complete a site-specific risk assessment and related risk 
evaluation addressing potential risks to swimmers in the Bay and the potential for vapor intrusion. 
Exxon Mobil acknowledges that TPHd concentrations in the groundwater are in excess of 
screening levels for ecological receptors and that that remedial action is necessary to prevent the 
migration of TPHd from groundwater to the Bay. Upon completion of additional site, 
investigation and risk assessment activities described above, Exxon Mobil will submit an 
Expanded Site Assessment Report and Addendum to the Environmental Risk Assessment and 
Feasibility Study including an updated conceptual evaluation of remedial alternative for site 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xmV03428 



70 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



cleanup. In reviewing the conceptual plan, the R WQCB will consider the proposed remedial 
actions with respect to feasibility, effectiveness in meeting water quality goals, and other 
potential environmental impacts. Pending agreement on the conceptual remedial action plan 
presented in the addendum, Exxon Mobil will develop a detailed remedial action plan for 
RWQCB review and approval. This plan will also be available for Port and public review. 
Implementation and approval of the remediation action plan would continue under the oversight 
of the RWQCB, and would involve further coordination with the Port and its tenants in the design 
of the slurry wall and/or carrying out the biological degradation and passive removal operations, 
to minimize or avoid conflicts with Port and tenant operations. 

Other Environmental Cases 

The environmental database review identified four sites with the greatest potential to affect soil or 
groundwater quality at the project site, including two sites with leaking USTs (identified in the 
leaking UST database), which would not be likely to have affected the project site, and two other 
sites for which limited information was available. Further detail regarding these sites is provided 
in Appendix C. 



Suspect Land Uses 

Several suspect land uses are located in the site vicinity, including sites with historic USTs and a 
former manufactured gas facility. Groundwater quality at the project site could potentially be 
affected by a release of petroleum products to the groundwater at one of the historic UST sites, 
although the potential contaminants would be similar to those identified at the Former Mobil Oil 
Terminal. The former gas plant could be a potential source of PAHs, petroleum hydrocarbons, 
benzene, cyanide, metals, and phenols to soil and groundwater in the project vicinity. Further 
information regarding these sites is provided in Appendix C. 



APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are subject to extensive federal, state, and local 
regulations, with the major objective of protecting public health and the environment. In general, 
these regulations define hazardous materials; establish reporting requirements; set guidelines for 
handling, storage, transport, remediation, and disposal of hazardous wastes; and require health 
and safety provisions for workers and the public. The major federal, state, and regional agencies 
enforcing these regulations include the U.S. EPA (federal); the Department of Toxic Substances 
Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California 
RWQCB (state); and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (regional). A 
more detailed description of the federal, state and regional hazardous materials regulatory 
framework is presented in Appendix C. The San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) 
often acts as lead agency to ensure proper remediation of leaking UST sites and other 
contaminated sites in San Francisco. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xjoSZ03428 



71 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



City of San Francisco Hazardous Materials Regulations 

Three regulations from the San Francisco Health Code, briefly summarized below (with more 
information provided in Appendix C), are relevant to demolition activities or construction and 
operation of the proposed project with respect to hazardous materials and hazardous waste. These 
include Article 22A (Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Waste, formerly the Maher Ordinance), 
Article 21 (Hazardous Materials), and Article 22 (Hazardous Waste Management). 

Under Article 22A of the Health Code, construction of projects located bayward of the historic 
high tide line that would involve excavation of greater than 50 cubic yards of soil requires 
preparation a site history to identify whether past uses might have cause contamination, 
characterization of on-site soils, and preparation of a site mitigation plan if contamination is 
identified. The soil analysis report is submitted to the SFDPH, and the measures recommended in 
the site mitigation plan must be completed during construction; SFDPH approval may be 
conditioned upon submittal of a Risk Management Plan, Health and Safety Plan, and possibly a 
Cap Maintenance Plan if hazardous materials remain in the soil or groundwater to prevent 
exposure. 

Article 21 of the Health Code provides for safe handling of hazardous materials in the City. It 
requires any person or business that handles, sells, stores, or otherwise uses specified quantities of 
to keep a current certificate of registration and to implement a hazardous materials business plan. 
A special permit is required for USTs. (This article also incorporates state tank regulations.). 

Article 22 of the Health Code provides for safe handling of hazardous wastes in the City. It 
authorizes the SFDPH to implement the state hazardous waste regulations, including authority to 
conduct inspections and document compliance. 



IMPACTS 



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

For purpose of this EIR, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect on 
the environment if it would: 

• involve a substantial risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous materials (including, 
but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation); 

• expose people to existing sources of potential hazards including hazardous materials; 

• create a public health hazard or potential public health hazard; or 

• interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 

Definition, identification, and determination of threshold levels of hazardous materials and wastes 
are provided in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and in Title 22 of the California Code 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxX203428 



72 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



of Regulations. Determination of "substantial" hazard or "insignificant" levels of hazardous 
materials is performed by the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis, depending on the 
proposed uses, potential exposure, and degree and type of hazard. 

HAZARDOUS BUILDING MATERIALS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, AND 
FIRE HAZARDS AND EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLANS 

The Initial Study reported that hazardous building materials at the project site have already been 
properly abated, and this potential impact related to hazardous building materials would be less 
than significant and require no further analysis in the EIR. The Initial Study also found that a new 
fish processing facility could involve the use of standard chemicals in quantities that would not be 
expected to cause an adverse impact to public health, and that the project would not result in a 
significant fire hazard, nor would it interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. 
Therefore, these issues are not discussed in the EIR. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER 

As discussed in the Setting, the project site is located in an area with historic industrial land uses 
that involved the use of hazardous materials as well as many environmental cases where soil 
and/or groundwater contamination have been identified, including the former Mobil Oil Bulk 
Terminal to the south. Within the immediate vicinity of the project site, there have historically 
been numerous underground and aboveground petroleum storage tank systems, resulting in 
petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater in the area and beneath the project site (TRC, 
2003). 

The proposed demolition would not disturb soil below approximately two feet below ground 
surface (although the precise depth for excavation for foundation requirements and the proposed 
fish handling facilities are currently unknown), and would not likely encounter petroleum 
hydrocarbons present in the soil at an upper limit of between 8 feet and 4 feet below grade and in 
the groundwater, at least 4.5 feet below ground surface. However, based on the presence of lead 
and PAHs in the soil that are suspected to be related to the fill materials used in the area, it is 
possible that the limited soil that would be excavated could contain hazardous materials and could 
pose health and safety risks to the construction workers and public. The excavated soil could 
require disposal as a restricted or hazardous waste. 

Because the excavation as part of the demolition of J- 10 wharf and J- 10 building would likely 
include excavation of less than 50 cubic yards of soil, Article 22A of the San Francisco Health 
Code would not apply. Mitigation Measure IS- 17, requiring preparation of a site health and safety 
plan, and Mitigation Measure IS-18, stockpiling, analysis, and proper disposal of all excavated 
soil (see Chapter 4, Mitigation Measures), would be implemented to reduce potential impacts 
related to handling and disposal of the soil to less than significant. Potential exposure to 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxV03428 



73 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater after construction of the proposed project would 
not be of concern because the project would include 100 percent impervious surfaces and future 
site occupants and visitors would not contact the soil or groundwater, and because the RWQCB 
will require remediation of volatile compounds (which could permeate pavement or concrete) 
through site cleanup requirements or similar regulatory authority. Both ExxonMobil, as the 
primarily responsible party, and the Port, as the property owner, will be subject to RWQCB 
requirements for the project site. The Port, through its building permit review process, would 
apply any conditions on future construction that might be required to comply with RWQCB 
requirements established to protect human health and the environment. Similarly, with regard to 
new construction of tenant or Port improvements (Phases 3 and 4 of the proposed project), should 
less than 50 cubic yards be disturbed, Mitigation Measures IS- 17 and IS- 18 would apply. 

If excavation during any construction activities in Phases 3 or 4 of the proposed project were to 
exceed 50 cubic yards of soil, the project would have to comply with the requirements of Article 
22A of the San Francisco Health Code, described in the Setting. The regulations would take 
effect at the time of the building permit application and would require preparation of a site history 
report to evaluate the potential for soil contamination at the site. If the potential for contamination 
were indicated, Article 22A would require a soil investigation, soil analysis report, site mitigation 
plan, and certification report stating that either (1) no hazardous wastes present in the soil present 
an unacceptable risk and that no mitigation measures are required; or (2) all mitigation measures 
recommended in the site mitigation report have been completed and that completion of the 
mitigation measures has been verified through follow-up soil sampling and analysis, if required. 

In the event that dewatering were required for construction activities, the pumped groundwater 
would be discharged to the sewer system in compliance with Article 4. 1 of the San Francisco 
Public Works Code (the Industrial Waste Ordinance), described in the Water Quality section of 
the Initial Study (Appendix A). As described in the Project Description, Exxon Mobil monitoring 
well AW -9, located within the project site, would be properly abandoned prior to demolition in 
accordance with state well construction standards, if needed, and would be replaced if required by 
the RWQCB. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the 
implementation of planned remediation activities at the former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal, but 
would allow construction of a slurry wall to prevent migration of contaminants to the Bay, as 
recommended by Exxon Mobil's Environmental Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study 
(RA/FSXTRC, 2004). 

Any groundwater pumped from the site shall be retained in a holding tank to allow suspended 
particles to settle, if this is found to be necessary by the Bureau of Environmental Regulations 
and Management of the Public Utilities Commission, to reduce the amount of sediment entering 
the storm drain/sewer lines. The Bureau of Environmental Regulation and Management of the 
Public Utilities Commission must be notified of projects necessitating dewatering. That office 
may require analysis and treatment, if applicable, before discharge. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xjaV03428 



74 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



Compliance with the Mitigation Measures IS-17 and IS-18 if the project includes disturbance of 
less than 50 cubic yards of soil or the requirements of Article 22A of the Health Code if 
construction of the project includes the disturbance of more than 50 cubic yards of soil and 
compliance with Article 4. 1 of the Public Works Code, if dewatering is required, would reduce 
impacts related to exposure to hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater to less than 
significant. 



CREOSOTE-TREATED PILES 

Wood piles that are used to support the existing wharf and buildings have been treated with 
creosote, which is an effective marine wood preservative, but may contain organic compounds 
toxic to marine organisms. Under California law (Health and Safety Code §25143), the pilings 
would not be considered a hazardous waste, unless otherwise classified by federal regulations, 
and can be disposed of at an appropriately permitted composite-lined waste disposal facility. 
Therefore, no impacts related to disposal of creosote treated pilings are anticipated. 



INSTALLATION OF NEW PILES DURING RECONSTRUCTION 

Any new structures built as part of the project that would extend over the Bay would be pile- 
supported, and new piles would be driven. The RWQCB would evaluate the potential water 
quality impacts of any construction project, including pile-driving, as part of a project-specific 
permit review, and would require mitigation as needed based on that evaluation. In general, the 
RWQCB has not identified pile driving as a significant threat to water quality because pile 
driving typically causes limited disturbance of surface sediments, which settle out quickly in the 
immediate vicinity without creating significant turbidity. Many sediment contaminants, including 
metals, PAHs and other organic compounds, adhere to the sediment particles and consequently 
are not likely to be mobilized by pile-driving. However, the RWQCB would evaluate the 
potential impact of pile driving, although each site is evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of 
the permit process. Should the RWQCB identify project-specific concerns, it would require 
permit conditions such as installation of a floating silt screen and monitoring water column 
contaminant levels. 22 Such permit review and conditions, as part of standard RWQCB practice 
and defined by law and regulation, would ensure that any water quality effects of pile driving 
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 



REFERENCES 

Unless otherwise noted, all references are available for review by appointment as part of the 
project environmental file at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File No. 
2001.0636E. 



Priya Ganguli, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, e-mail communication to Carol Bach, Poii of 
San Francisco, July 8, 2005. Available for review by appointment as part of the project environmental file at the 
Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File No. 2001.0636E. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxQ03428 



75 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB), 2005a. 
Property at 440 Jefferson Street, San Francisco, San Francisco County; Water Board Staff 
Comments and Request Additional Information Regarding the August 2004 Exxon Mobil 
Environmental Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study for the Former Mobil Bulk Terminal 
004-394. May 6. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB), 2005b. 
Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites With Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 
February. 

Environmental Data Resources (EDR), 2005. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, Wharf 3-10, 
Hyde Street/ Jefferson Street, San Francisco, CA, 94109. Inquiry Number: 01 369207. Ir. 
February 28. 

Ganguli, Priya, 2004. Former Mobil Bulk Terminal 04-394, Active General Petroleum Marine 
Diesel Bulk Storage Facility, 440 Jefferson Street, San Francisco, California. Project 
Update Presentation. December 8. 

North Tower Environmental, 2003. Asbestos and Lead Related Work Activities, Port of San 
Francisco, Wharf J-10, San Francisco, California. May 12. 

TRC, 2003. Technical Information Report, Exxon Mobil Site 04-394, 440 Jefferson Street, 
San Francisco, California. April. 

TRC, 2004. Environmental Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study, Former Mobil Bulk Plant 04- 
394, General Petroleum Marine Bulk Storage Facility, 440 Jefferson Street, San Francisco, 
California. August. 

TRC, 2005. Response to Comments and Additional Site Assessment Workplan, Former Mobil 
Bulk Terminal 04-394, General Petroleum Marine Diesel Bulk Storage Facility, 440 
Jefferson Street, San Francisco, California. June 15. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



76 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



D. GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

In general, a project would be considered growth-inducing if its implementation would result in 
substantial population increases and/or encourage or facilitate new development that might not 
occur if the project were not approved and implemented. The proposed project, demolition and 
construction of new fishing industry facilities to replace an existing, vacant fish processing 
facility, would not result in growth-inducing impacts because it would not create any new 
housing or new uses that would draw a substantial number of new workers to the area. 
Furthermore, because the project would essentially amount to replacement of an existing facility 
that was vacated only due to structural considerations, it would not be expected to increase or 
decrease activities associated with the local fishing industry. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



77 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER IV 



MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES 

In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified that would reduce or 
eliminate potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Some of these 
measures have been, or would be, voluntarily adopted by the project sponsor or project architect 
and contractor and thus are proposed as part of the project; some are identified in this EIR and are 
under consideration by the project sponsor. Implementation of some may be the responsibility of 
other agencies. Measures under consideration or those that may have been rejected by the project 
sponsor may be required by the Port Commission or by responsible agencies, including the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission or Regional Water Quality Control Board, as 
conditions of project approval, if the project were to be approved. Each mitigation measure and 
its status are discussed below. 

There are several items required by law that would serve to mitigate potential significant impacts; 
they are summarized here for informational purposes. These measures include: limitation of 
construction-related noise levels, pursuant to the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of 
the San Francisco Police Code, 1972); compliance with Chapter 34, Section 3407 of the San 
Francisco Building Code, Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint on Pre-1979 Buildings and Steel 
Structures; and observance of State and federal OSHA safety requirements related to handling 
and disposing of other hazardous materials, such as asbestos. 

Mitigation measures for the impacts of the proposed project are discussed below. Mitigation 
measures identified in this EIR, discussed in Section A below, and in the Initial Study, listed in 
Section B below, would be required by decision makers as conditions of project approval unless 
they are demonstrated to be infeasible based on substantial evidence in the record. 

Improvement measures for the proposed project are discussed below in Section C. Improvement 
measures are measures that would be implemented to reduce the severity of less-than-significant 
impacts. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

C:\203xxnS203428 



78 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



A. MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

Mitigation Measure EIR-1 - Documentation of Historical Resources 

Detailed recordation of the Wharf J- 10 building and substructure prior to demolition 
would partially mitigate the loss of the historical resource. In May 2003, the Port 
retained ARG to prepare archival -quality photographs and documentation of Wharf J- 10. 
ARG's report includes: 

• Architectural Recordation Form; and 

• Fourteen black-and-white (exterior) archival-quality photographs; and 

• Original 1919 building plans . 

Recordation provides important historical information that minimizes, but does not fully 
mitigate, the loss of historical resources and features. The documentation of the building 
would be considered for both reconstruction and archival purposes. Implementation of 
this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to historical resources, but not to a less- 
than-significant level. The loss of the Wharf J-10 would be a significant and unavoidable 
impact. Significant impacts to historical resources could only be reduced to a less-than- 
significant level by selection of Alternative A (see Chapter VI, Alternatives). 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Mitigation Measure EIR-2 - Archeological Testing and Data Recovery Program 

This mitigation measure is based on the presumption that buried and/or submerged 
archeological resources may be affected by the project and that the resources are 
archeologically significant (Pub. Res. Code § 6313(c)). To address this potential impact, 
the following measures shall be undertaken to reduce potential effects of the proposed 
project on historically significant archeological resources ("historical resources" as 
defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a) and (c)) and on "unique archeological" 
resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(3) and Public Resources Code 
Section 21083.2) to a less-than-significant level. It is expected that remains of a 
shipwreck and/or associated cargo could be affected by the project. 

Basic Requirements: 

The project sponsor shall retain the services of an archeological consultant who meets the 
professional qualifications of a marine archeologist as specified in Public Resources 
Code Section 6313(e). The archeological consultant shall undertake an archeological 
testing program and, if determined warranted by the Environmental Review Officer 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:^203xxM03428 



79 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



(ERO), an archeological data recovery program as specified herein. The archeological 
consultant's work shall be conducted in accordance with this measure at the direction of 
the ERO and be conducted prior to any onsite project activities that would disturb buried 
and/or submerged archeological resources. Study results shall be used by the ERO to 
modify, as necessary, the project to ensure that significant resources are preserved, 
salvaged, or documented as required by law, rule, or regulation. 

Archeological Testing/Data Recovery Program: 

Purpose: The purpose of the archeological testing program will be to determine to the 
extent possible the presence or absence of archeological resources and to identify and to 
evaluate whether any archeological resource encountered constitutes an "historical 
resource" or a "unique archeological" resource under CEQA. 

Timing of Implementation : This mitigation measure shall be implemented prior to the 
occurrence of any project activity that has the potential to directly or indirectly affect 
significant historical or "unique archeological" resources, such as, pile driving, 
disturbance of Bay bottom sediments or mud, reconstruction in part or in whole of the 
wharf or installation of any pile- or bay-anchored structure, and placement of new riprap 
on the bay floor or on top of the existing riprap in an amount greater than four feet in 
depth. This mitigation measure may be implemented after project activities that would 
not directly or indirectly significantly affect historical or "unique archeological" 
resources, such as, improvements shore-side of the existing seawall, demolition of 
superstructures (buildings, etc.) on the existing wharf, removal/demolition of the wharf, 
placement of riprap on top of existing riprap to a maximum depth of four feet, and repairs 
of the existing sea wall. 

Archeological Testing and Data Recovery Plan (AT/DRP) 

Scope: Prior to the start of any activities, as identified above, that have the potential to 
directly or indirectly affect significant historical or "unique archeological" resources, the 
archeological consultant shall prepare and submit to the ERO and the California State 
Lands Commission (CSLC), for review and approval, an archeological testing and data 
recovery plan (AT/DRP). Due to environmental and logistical constraints (presence of 
riprap and pile remnants, submerged nature of resource) it may be necessary, if 
archeological data recovery is warranted, to collapse a testing, evaluation, and data 
recovery program into a single sequence. The archeological consultant, project sponsor, 
the CSLC, and ERO shall consult on the scope of the AT/DRP prior to preparation of a 
draft plan. The AT/DRP shall conform to the requirements of State law for a 
salvage/excavation permit involving a submerged archeological site/historical resource 
(Pub. Res. Code Sec. 6313 (d), (e), and (f)). 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjta03428 



80 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



AT/DRP: Documentary Elements 

The archeological testing program shall be conducted in accordance with the approved 
AT/DRP. which shall contain the following components: 

• Historical Context: Vessel type; physical description of vessel(s) (registered 
dimensions & tonnage); age; owners; career of vessel; method of construction; 
place of origin; significant design features; alterations; associations (historical 
event, persons, technological changes); shipwreck event; salvage activities; 
subsequent disturbance; name history; shipmasters or captains; expected 
geographical and subbottom location; expected debris field and cargo. 

• Research Design: Research questions; identification of diagnostic vessel attributes 
that must be present to identify vessel type; identification of data that must be 
present to address significant architectural, technological or historical research 
questions; identification of types of physical remains that must be present for the 
shipwreck remains to be eligible for listing to the CRHR/NRHP under criteria A, 
B, C, or D. 

• Testing Plan: Identification of survey/testing techniques to be employed, testing 
locations, and methods of resource evaluation; 

• Data Recovery Plan: Descriptions of proposed data identification and retrieval. 

• Cataloguing and Laboratory Analysis. Description of cataloguing system and 
artifact analysis procedures. 

• Discard and Deaccession Policy . Description of and rationale for field and post- 
field discard and deaccession policies. 

• Curation. Description of the procedures and recommendations for the curation of 
any recovered data having potential research value, identification of appropriate 
curation facilities, and a summary of the accession policies of the curation 
facilities. 

• Time limitations: The archeological testing and/or data recovery program required 
by this measure could suspend project construction activities for up to a maximum 
period of four weeks. At the direction of the ERO, the suspension of construction 
activities can be extended beyond four weeks only if such a suspension is the only 
feasible means to reduce potential effects of the project on a significant historical or 
"unique archeological" resource to a less than significant level. 

Completion of Testing/Data Recovery Program 

• Report: At the completion of the archeological testing program, the archeological 
consultant shall submit a written report of the findings to the ERO. If based on the 
archeological testing program the archeological consultant finds that significant 
historical or "unique archeological" resources may be present, the ERO, in 
consultation with the CSLC, and the archeological consultant shall determine if 
additional measures are warranted. 

• Finding of Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Historical 
Resource: If the ERO determines that a significant historical resource or a "unique 
archeological" resource is present and that the proposed project could cause a 
substantial adverse change, either: 

A) The proposed project shall be re-designed so as to avoid any adverse effect on 
the significant archeological resource; or 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxS203428 



81 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



B) A data recovery program shall be implemented, unless the ERO determines that 
the archeological resource is of greater interpretive value than research 
significance and that interpretive use of the resource is feasible. 

Criteria of Evaluation of Significance and Appropriate Mitigative Action 

The determination of the appropriate recovery sample of a shipwreck or associated cargo 
will depend on the basis by which the shipwreck/cargo is determined to be eligible to the 
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). 

• If the historical resource encountered through archeological testing is determined 
eligible to the CRHR/NRHP under Criterion A (significant event) or under 
Criterion B (Significant person), archeological testing and recovery of a 
representative portion of the shipwreck and the appropriate curation or interpretive 
use of this shipwreck portion will reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. 

• If the historical resource encountered through archeological testing is determined 
eligible to the CRHR/NRHP under Criterion C (significant method of construction, 
distinctive type, period, high artistic value), archeological testing and recovery of 
the portion(s) of the shipwreck that exemplifies the significant method of 
construction, etc. and the appropriate curation or interpretive use of this shipwreck 
portion will reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. 

• If the historical resource encountered through archeological testing is determined 
eligible to the CRHR/NRHP under Criterion D (significant scientific information), 
the verification by testing/evaluation of the presence or of the identity of a 
shipwreck may be significant information that can be recorded and if the shipwreck 
(hull, portions of ship/ cargo) would be adversely impacted by the project, data 
recovery will be undertaken, reducing the impact to a less-than-significant level. 

Final Disposition of Recovered Archeological Material and Field Documentation 

Final disposition of the recovered archeological (artifactual and ecofactual) material and 
associated field, inventory, and analysis records shall be in a curation facility approved 
by the CSLC (Pub. Res. Code § 6313(g)). A copy of the catalogue of all recovered 
and/or curated archeological material and associated records shall be submitted to the 
ERO and the CSLC. 

Final Archeological Resources Report (FARR) 

The archeological consultant shall submit a Draft Final Archeological Resources Report 
(FARR) to the ERO and the CSLC that evaluates the historical significance of any 
discovered archeological resource and describes the archeological and historical research 
methods employed in the archeological testing/data recovery program(s) undertaken. 
Information that may put at risk any archeological resource shall be provided in a 
separate removable insert within the final report. 

Once approved by the ERO and the CSLC, copies of the FARR shall be distributed as 
follows: California Archeological Site Survey Northwest Information Center (NWIC) 
shall receive one (1) copy and the ERO shall receive a copy of the transmittal of the 
FARR to the NWIC. The Major Environmental Analysis division of the Planning 



Case No. 200J.0636E 82 Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 

G:\203xxA203428 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



Department and the CSLC shall each receive two copies of the FARR along with copies 
of any formal site recordation forms (CA DPR 523 series) and/or documentation for 
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places/California Register of Historical 
Resources. In instances of high public interest in or the high interpretive value of the 
resource, the ERO and the CSLC may require a different final report content, format, and 
distribution than that presented above. 

Reports: Review and Approval 

All plans and reports prepared by the consultant as specified herein shall be submitted 
first and directly to the ERO for review and comment, and shall be considered draft 
reports subject to revision until final approval by the ERO. 

B. MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE INITIAL STUDY 

CONSTRUCTION AIR QUALITY 

Mitigation Measure IS-1 - Demolition/Construction Activity Air Quality Impacts 23 

The project sponsor shall require contractor(s) to spray the sites with water during 
demolition, excavation, and construction activities; spray unpaved construction areas with 
water at least twice per day; cover stockpiles of soil, sand, and other material; cover trucks 
hauling debris, soils, sand, or other such material; and sweep surrounding streets during 
demolition, excavation, and construction at least once per day to reduce particulate 
emissions. 

Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that 
non-potable water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the project sponsor shall 
require that the contractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for this 
purpose. The project sponsor shall require the project contractor(s) to maintain and operate 
construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions of particulates and other 
pollutants, -by such means as a prohibition on idling motors when equipment is not in use 
or when trucks are waiting in queues, and implementation of specific maintenance 
programs to reduce emissions for equipment that would be in frequent use for much of the 
construction period. 

BIOLOGY 

Mitigation Measure IS-2 - Pier Replacement [revisions from Initial Study text underlined] 

To the extent feasible, the Port and other project sponsors shall limit pier (piling) 
replacement to between March 1 and November 30 to eliminate any potentially significant 
impacts of pile driving or pier replacement on the Pacific herring fishery. In the event that 
pier replacement operations must conflict with the herring season, the Port shall consult 
with the permitting agencies, including but not necessarily limited to the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission, State Lands Commission, and Regional Water Quality Control 



This mitigation measure is comparable to Mitigation Measure F-l from the WLUP EIR (p. 649). 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



83 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



Board. The Port and other proj ect sponsors shall comply with specific monitoring 
requirements established by these and other agencies to avoid impacts on the herring 
fishery or other bio lo gical resources . (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure H-l). 

Mitigation Measure IS-3 - Demolition/Construction Activity 

Prior to demolition or renovation of any abandoned building between August 15 and 
October 15, or between February 1 and May 1, a survey(s) shall be conducted during the 
same period by a qualified bat biologist. 

If Townsend's western big-eared bat, a California Species of Special Concern, is found 
during an August - October survey, appropriate exclusion devices approved by California 
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Survey 
(USFWS) shall be installed by a qualified bat biologist. Once the bats have been excluded, 
demolition may occur. If Townsend's western big-eared bats are found during a February - 
May survey, demolition shall not take place until the end of the nursing season in August. 
Exclusion devices shall be placed by a qualified bat biologist in accordance with CDFG 
and USFWS. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure H-2). If no Townsend's western big-eared bats 
are found during the survey(s), no additional mitigation is required. 

GEOLOGY 

Mitigation Measure IS-4 - Geotechnical Investigation/Demolition 

A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted under the direction of a Geotechnical 
Engineer prior to permitting any new construction or reuse of an existing structure for new 
uses that could increase the load of the structure. The investigation shall be performed to 
evaluate subsurface conditions and existing foundation conditions at the site. The 
geotechnical investigation shall evaluate the potential hazards such as settlement, ground 
shaking, ground rupture, liquefaction, subsidence, slope stability, and lateral spreading. 
Recommendations shall be made regarding the design of new foundations, upgrading of 
existing foundations, seismic design, and mitigation of geologic hazards. (1997 WLUP 
FEIR Measure 1-1) 

Mitigation Measure IS-5 - Pier Replacement 

Piles that are in poor condition shall be repaired or demolished and removed. If repaired, 
piles that are deteriorated shall be replaced or the portion that is rotted or deteriorated shall 
be cut off and replaced with a concrete-filled steel sleeve. A structural engineer shall be 
consulted regarding the repair of the piers. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I- 10b) 

Mitigation Measure IS-6 - Pile Driving Plan [revisions from Initial Study text underlined] 

Prior to any vibration producing pile driving, the applicant shall submit and the Port shall 
review a pile driving plan and an analysis of potential impact to adjacent properties to 
determine whether the potential exists to damage off-site property. 

As a standard practice, the Port shall require an application package that will indicate the 
amount of pile driving and the period over which pile driving may be required. The 
package shall include a survey of adjacent structures with information concerning their age, 
foundation type, construction type, status as an historic landmark or structure of special 
significance, and record of any existing damage. The package shall also identify adjacent 
City streets and the location of buried infrastructure. In addition, the application shall 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:V03xxx\203428 



84 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



indicate any specific mitigation measures incorporated into the project to minimize hazards 
to structures. (Revised from the WLUP 1997 FEIR Measure I-3a and 1-4) 

Mitigation Measure IS-7 - Potential Damage from Pile Driving 

To minimize pile driving hazards, the construction project shall provide supports to 
adjacent structures, including foundation support if needed. (Revised from 1997 WLUP 
FEIR Measure I-3b and 1-4) 

The applicant for the construction project shall post a surety bond to cover the costs of 
potential damage to off-site property from construction involving vibration inducing pile 
driving. (The bond is included as a mitigation measure because of the uncertainty that 
other mitigation measures shall protect off-site property from damage. If needed, the bond 
shall be used to repair off-site damage and thus mitigate that impact.) The amount of the 
bond shall be determined by the Port. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-3c 
and 1-4) 

Mitigation Measure IS-8 - Pile Driving Notification 

Prior to any construction that would require pile driving, the project sponsor shall notify all 
property owners within 300 feet of the proposed construction activity at least three months 
prior to the date of initiating demolition or excavation, whichever is the first activity to 
occur. The sponsor shall provide an opportunity for all property owners to comment on the 
construction activity and allow them the opportunity to have their property photo- 
documented for its pre-construction condition. The sponsor is responsible for inspection of 
construction activities and should note any observations of proven or suspected subsidence 
damage on the site and at adjacent sites. This measure would allow adjacent property 
owners to document the condition of their property prior to initiation of an activity that 
could result in damage. If damage does occur, the measure would help to identify the 
extent of the damage caused by construction. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR 
Measure I-3d and 1-4) 

Mitigation Measure IS-9 - Earthquake Hazards 

To minimize hazards to the future building occupants from non-structural damage, the Port 
shall require that building occupants carry out the following measures at a minimum: 
heavy objects should be attached to secure walls and floors, and light, loose objects should 
be placed to minimize their potential to move or overturn; large storage containers should 
not be loosely stacked, and those stored on shelves should have appropriate restraints or 
other means to prevent them from tipping or sliding off the shelves. 

Heavy objects like freezers, boilers, chillers, laboratory equipment, battery racks and 
electrical transformers, heavy storage cabinets, tanks, safes, oversize file cabinets, etc., 
shall be firmly secured to floors and walls to prevent their falling or sliding. All equipment 
using natural gas shall be anchored. Care shall be taken to avoid placement of such objects 
where they could topple or move and block exit doors. (Revised from 1997 the WLUP 
FEIR Measure I-7b) 

Non-structural interior elements (ceilings, partitions, light fixtures, HVAC, pipes, etc.) shall 
be designed to withstand strong ground shaking and remain intact. This shall be 
accomplished, for example, by selecting lightweight materials and firmly securing them to 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:X203xxx<203428 



85 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



structural elements of the building and by using flexible connections for pipes. (1997 
WLUP FEIR Measure I-7d) 

The Port shall require the use of flexible utility connections and fasten water heaters to 
walls. Require the installation of automatic shut-off valves in all natural gas pipelines and 
provide similar emergency shut-off valves for other gas (oxygen and nitrogen) systems. Do 
not install automatic shut-off valves for water supplies. Require the posting of 
room/building layout diagrams that indicate the location of shut-off valves for natural gas. 
(1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-7e) 

The Port shall require fire extinguishers in all rooms and hallways and adjacent to all exit 
doors (including stairwell exits). Require that cabinets are not placed where they could 
overturn and block access to fire extinguishers. Require the training of all staff of offices, 
hotels, industrial facilities, restaurants and entertainment complexes in the use of fire 
extinguishers. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-7f) 

Implementation of this measure would reduce the hazards of an earthquake to an acceptable 
level of risk, within the requirements of the City of San Francisco. Earthquake hazards 
could not be entirely eliminated, and the proposed project would therefore result in 
significant effects related to earthquake hazards that could not be fully mitigated, by 
exposing increased numbers of persons to substantial danger in an earthquake. 

Mitigation Measure IS- 10 - Hazardous Materials Related to Earthquake Hazards 

The Port shall take feasible steps to minimize potential earthquake safety risks related to 
hazardous materials in its operations and that of its tenants. 

Specific steps may include appropriate seismic safety provisions, such as prohibiting the 
storage of hazardous materials in containers above head level (about five feet); anchoring 
hazardous materials shelves and heavy equipment to walls and floors; constructing heavy 
doors that are designed to remain shut during earthquake vibrations; providing hand- 
operable closures for vents and air ducts; and other provisions as discussed in the 
Association of Bay Area Governments' Hazardous Material Problems in Earthquakes: A 
Guide to Their Cause and Mitigation. Other measures shall be implemented as 
recommended by the San Francisco Fire Department and/or Health Department. 
Additionally, The Port shall prepare an Emergency Procedures Manual and periodically 
revise it to be consistent with changes in the facilities and operations. (1997 WLUP FEIR 
Measure I-8a) 

The Port shall require the tenant to design all facilities for storage of hazardous chemicals 
in containers, such as cabinets, shelves, and drawers, to minimize potential hazards in an 
earthquake. The Port would require tenants to report on compliance and should conduct 
inspections for compliance (or contract with the Fire Department and/or Health Department 
to carry out inspections). 

Storage facilities would include safety lips to contain spills and to reduce the likelihood of 
contents falling. All shelves and cabinets should be secured to a wall or ceiling. All 
cabinets and drawers should be provided with positive latches that would not open during 
earthquake motions and vibrations. Compressed gas cylinders, including empty ones, 
should be secured to fixed features. Gas cylinders should be secured at two locations along 
their vertical axis, one in the top one-third of the cylinder and another in the bottom third of 
the cylinder. 



Case No. 200 1. 063 6E 

G:\203xxiS203428 



86 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



The Port would require storage of hazardous chemicals in approved containers and 
separation of incompatible chemicals in separate storage areas. If chemical storage is 
vented by an electric fan, an alternative (emergency) means of ventilation would be 
provided, which may be a mechanical (non-powered) vent. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP 
FEIR Measure I-8b) 

Mitigation Measure IS- 11 - Tsunamis 

At the time of anticipated tsunami incursion, the San Francisco Police Department shall 
close off the immediate waterfront area of Aquatic Park, Fisherman's Wharf and the Hyde 
Street Pier to the public; all marina operators should close off access to the docks for the 
public and boat owners; and ferry boat operators should prevent people from standing on 
water-level ferry loading docks everywhere in the Project Area. 

This mitigation measure would help to reduce the potential for casualties to occur from 
tsunami by keeping people away from areas where injury could occur. Damage to facilities 
would not be mitigated. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure 1-1 la) 

Mitigation Measure IS- 12 - Facility Design 

The Port and/or project occupants shall employ an engineer qualified in earthquake 
engineering to incorporate into the final design of individual facilities included in the 
project all economically feasible engineering methods to reduce the potential for loss of 
life-line services. This may include methods to improve unstable ground conditions, to 
strengthen infrastructure to be more resistant to earthquake induced ground movements, 
and to organize and prepare for earthquake response. 

While specialized techniques for ground improvement to reduce liquefaction hazards likely 
are not practical or economically feasible over large areas, ground improvements within 
selected strategic sites may result in substantial hazard reduction to utility systems. In such 
areas a variety of ground stabilization techniques may be considered, such as compaction 
grouting, placement of stone columns, and deep soil mixing. (Revised from the 1997 
WLUP FEIR Measure I-9a) 

The project design shall incorporate flexible connections for utility lines and provide back- 
up supplies of water, power generators, and battery-operated telecommunications 
equipment. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-9b) 

Mitigation Measure IS-13 - Facility Inspection 

Following construction of the proposed project, an inspection schedule shall be developed 
and followed for regular inspection and evaluation of the condition of the piers. In 
conjunction with the inspection schedule, a maintenance and repair schedule shall be 
developed and implemented. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I- 10a) 

Some measures specified in the FEIR do not apply to the project analyzed in this Initial Study and 
are not included above. The measures not included are: 

• 1-2 specifying requirements for open sub-grade structures and pits because there 
would be no sub-grade structures or pits created as a result of this project. 



Case No. 200 1.063 6 E 

G:\203xxM03428 



87 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



• 1-5 specifying requirements for dredging projects because dredging would not be 
required for the proposed project. 

• 1-6 requiring that areas not immediately redeveloped be secured against life safety 
hazard and the potential to damage adjacent properties. 

• I-7a regarding new high-occupancy and mid-rise structures (i.e. on the order of 6 to 
15 stories) because the project would not include a high-occupancy or mid-rise 
structure. 

• I-7c requiring emergency response supply and equipment storage for high 
occupancy buildings because the proposed project would not include a high 
occupancy building. 

• I-7g requiring the Port to prepare an emergency preparedness and response plan 
and to require facilities with over 100 visitors or employees to prepare their own 
plan because the required Port plan has been prepared and the proposed project 
would not include more than 100 visitors or employees. 

• I-9c requiring the Port and the City's Office of Emergency Services to plan routes 
of alternative emergency access to development sites because this is outside of the 
requirements of the proposed project and should be completed by the Port. 

• 1-1 lb requiring construction of larger and higher breakwaters at the Hyde Street 
Pier, Fisherman's Wharf, and marinas because this is outside of the scope of the 
proposed project. 

WATER QUALITY 

Mitigation Measure IS- 14 - Construction Activities 

The Port would ensure that construction activities are scheduled to avoid conflict with 
special activities of the nearby swimming clubs. 

Mitigation Measure IS- 15 - Storm Water Runoff at F. Alioto Site 

Storm water runoff from the roof of the proposed F. Alioto building shall be directed 
through gutters and roof leaders towards discharge to the Bay. Roofing materials shall be 
specified to minimize introduction of pollutants into storm water runoff. This measure, if 
consistent with all applicable water quality regulations, could reduce volumes flowing to 
the combined sewer system. 

Mitigation Measure IS- 16 - Storm Water Runoff at Cal Shell Site 

Storm water runoff from the Cal Shell support space along Fish Alley shall be collected 
and treated prior to discharge to the Bay. This measure could further reduce volumes 
flowing to the combined sewer system, if consistent with all applicable water quality 
regulations. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



88 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Mitigation Measure IS- 17 - Health and Safety Plan 

Potential hazards to construction workers and the general public during demolition and 
construction shall be mitigated by the preparation and implementation of a site-specific 
health and safety plan. The health and safety plan shall meet the requirements of federal, 
state and local environmental and worker safety laws. Specific information to be provided 
in the plan includes identification of contaminants, potential hazards, material handling 
procedures, dust suppression methods, personal protection clothing and devices, controlled 
access to the site, health and safety training requirements, monitoring equipment to be used 
during construction to verify health and safety of the workers and the public, measures to 
protect public health and safety, and emergency response procedures. 

Mitigation Measure IS- 18 - Soil Classification 

During construction, excavated soil shall be stockpiled on plastic, sampled for waste 
classification purposes, and legally disposed of. In the event that the soil were characterized 
as a hazardous waste according to State or Federal criteria, the soil shall be disposed of at a 
Class I disposal facility. Soil classified as a non-hazardous waste could be disposed of at a 
Class II or III disposal facility in accordance with applicable waste disposal regulations. 

C. IMPROVEMENT MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR 

LAND USE AND PLANNING 

Improvement Measure IM-1 - Compliance with Fish Alley Design Criteria 

Prior to approval of a new building for F. Alioto or of other new construction on the 
Wharf J- 10 site, the Port shall review the design(s) for consistency with the Design 
Criteria for Seawall Lots 302 & 303 (Fish Alley Area) included in the Waterfront Land 
Use Plan (WLUP) Design and Access Element. The Port shall ensure that any design 
approved for construction is consistent with the design criteria to the maximum extent 
feasible consistent with other WLUP policies, including ensuring the continuation of 
fishing industry operations at Fish Alley, and consistent with existing lease provisions 
and other requirements. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xvtQ03428 



89 



Wharf J-IO Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER V 



SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 
AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 



In accordance with Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and with 
Sections 15040, 15081, and 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this chapter is to 
identify impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to an insignificant level by mitigation 
measures included as part of the project, or by other mitigation measures that could be 
implemented, as described in Chapter IV, Mitigation Measures. This chapter is subject to final 
determination by the San Francisco Planning Commission as part of the certification process for 
the EIR. If necessary, this chapter will be revised in the Final EIR to reflect the findings of the 
Planning Commission. 

As discussed in Chapter HI, Environmental Setting and Impacts, and Chapter IV, Mitigation 
Measures, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant environmental 
effects on historic architectural resources (Wharf J-10 and the potential California Register of 
Historical Resources-eligible district to which Wharf J-10 is a contributor) that could only be 
eliminated by selection of an alternative project. If selection of an alternative project is 
infeasible, possible mitigation measures would include recordation of the historic architectural 
resource prior to its demolition. Implementation of this measure would reduce impacts to historic 
architectural resources, but not to a less-than-significant level. As such, demolition of the 
historical resource would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



90 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER VI 



ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 



This chapter identifies alternatives to the proposed project and discusses environmental impacts 
associated with each alternative. Project decision-makers could adopt any of the following 
alternatives, if feasible, instead of approving the proposed project. 

CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of 
alternatives to a proposed project, or alternative locations of a project site, that could feasibly 
attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The purpose of the alternatives evaluation is to 
foster informed decision-making and public participation. The discussion of alternatives must 
"focus on alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the 
project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project 
objectives or be more costly." The significant adverse impact of the proposed Wharf J-10 project 
would be the demolition of an historical resource. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives 
that are infeasible. The EIR should discuss the rationale for selecting alternatives to be discussed, 
and should also identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as 
infeasible during the scoping process and should explain this latter determination. 

The alternatives presented and analyzed in this EIR establish a framework for evaluating options 
other than the demolition, described in Chapter n, Project Description. The alternatives evaluated 
below include a No Project Alternative and three other alternatives: Historic Rehabilitation of 
Wharf J-10 with a New Substructure, Reconstruction of Wharf J-10 with Salvaged Elements, and 
Construction of a New Facility Consistent with Design Criteria. 



A. NO PROJECT 

DESCRIPTION 

This alternative would entail no change to the site. The existing building and wharf substructure 
would not be demolished and would not be replaced with a new fish processing facility, a 
concrete staging area, or a fish receiving wharf. 



IMPACTS 

Under this alternative, immediate impacts to historical resources would be avoided. However, 
Wharf J-10 would continue to deteriorate and would continue to pose a public safety hazard that 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjS203428 



91 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 



could pose a danger to people, either directly or indirectly, through falling debris or potential 
damage to adjacent structures. Further deterioration could also adversely affect water quality due 
to debris falling in the water and it is reasonable to assume that, if left in its current condition, 
Wharf J-10 would ultimately collapse, thereby resulting in similar historic architectural resource 
impacts as the proposed project. 

It is unlikely that any submerged archeological resources would be immediately affected because 
no new piles would be driven and no new riprap would be placed under this alternative, unless or 
until the structure were to collapse and be replaced. 

B. HISTORIC REHABILITATION OF WHARF J-10 WITH NEW 
SUBSTRUCTURE 

DESCRIPTION 

The intent of this alternative is to re-situate the building on a reconstructed substructure and 
rehabilitate the shed structure in accordance with the WLUP's Fish Alley design criteria, which 
were developed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of 
Historic Properties. This alternative would involve the rehabilitation of the Wharf J-10 building 
atop a new wharf substructure. Due to the deterioration of the substructure that precludes use of 
construction equipment on, or entry of workers to, the site, reconstruction of the substructure 
would require that the building be suspended off of the ground for the duration of the reparation 
and stabilization of the wharf substructure. Port engineering staff has theorized that a steel-frame 
cage-like structure could possibly be built around the existing fish processing building, with the 
building connected to this cage, to support and stabilize the building during work on the 
substructure. 

After stabilization of the substructure, the building would be replaced on its original footprint and 
rehabilitated according to the WLUP's Fish Alley Design Criteria. However, it is not known with 
certainty whether this, or another, engineering solution would be physically feasible given the 
fragile condition of the substructure. According to the Port, instituting this engineering approach 
to structurally support the Wharf J-10 building while the substructure is removed and replaced 
would require driving piles around the perimeter of the entire facility, and possible penetrations 
through the building in certain locations. The vibration impacts of the required pile driving could 
itself trigger the collapse of the facility before the Wharf J-10 building was secured. The 
attachments between the steel frame cage to the building itself could result in substantial damage 
or loss of historic building materials that would reduce the historic integrity of the structure. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203vM03428 



92 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 



IMPACTS 

Under this alternative, some impacts associated with historic resources would be avoided. 
Rehabilitating Wharf J- 10 would avoid the significant impact on the potential California Register- 
eligible historic district, and on Wharf J-10, a contributing resource, that would occur under the 
proposed project. However, it is possible that the building could sustain substantial damage 
during reconstruction of the wharf substructure due to the strain of being suspended. 

In addition, due to the state of deterioration of some of the piles that support the wharf, it is likely 
that pile replacement would be necessary under this alternative. This would require the removal 
of deteriorated piles, which would be cut approximately six inches above the Bay floor, and the 
addition of new piers that would be driven into the Bay. New piles being driven into the Bay, 
both for long-term structural support and to temporarily uphold the Wharf J-10 building during 
reconstruction of the substructure, could adversely affect submerged archeological resources, if 
present, as would be the case with new construction under the proposed project. The pile driving 
associated with this alternative, therefore, would not avoid the potentially significant impact on 
the sunken Gold Rush-era shipwrecks that could be located under the project site and mitigation 
would be required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, although the mitigation 
identified for the proposed project (subsurface testing prior to pile-driving) would be substantially 
complicated by the presence of the existing building. Also, if new piles were required, this could 
cause further damage or alteration to the existing building if the piles had to go through the 
building. 

Because the new building would likely maintain the same design as the existing building, this 
alternative would be consistent with the Fish Alley Design Criteria, unlike the proposed project. 

Effects related to hazardous materials would be the same as those with the proposed project. 

The Port believes that this alternative would be prohibitively expensive because it would require 
attempting to support the existing building while replacing its substructure, and Port staff has not 
identified any proven methodology for such an undertaking. 



C. RECONSTRUCTION OF WHARF J-10 WITH SALVAGED 
ELEMENTS 

DESCRIPTION 

This alternative would involve the demolition of the existing Wharf J-10 building and 
substructure and the reconstruction of a portion of the site with a new single-story fish processing 
facility by the F. Alioto Fish Company, using salvageable materials, including siding, roof tiles, 
shutters, signage, etc. from the existing building. The design of the new building would be 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjS203428 



93 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and lmprownwnt.\ 



VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 



consistent, insofar as is possible, with the Fish Alley Design Criteria of the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan Design and Access Element. The purpose of this alternative would be to help maintain the 
historic and architectural character of the site, as well as to minimize impacts of incompatible 
construction on the remainder of Fish Alley, including the two other historic buildings at 2907- 
2909 and 291 1 Jones Street that would remain following demolition of the Wharf J-10 building 
and substructure. Because of the instability of the Wharf J-10 substructure, temporary structural 
bracing would have to be installed to support the load of workers engaged in removing the 
materials to be salvaged. However, it is not known whether a contractor could guarantee that a 
temporary support system that the contractor designed would adequately protect the safety of 
construction workers. 24 

IMPACTS 

Under this alternative, the impacts to the existing potential California Register-eligible historic 
district that are associated with the demolition of Wharf J-10 would remain the same as under the 
proposed project, and would be significant and unavoidable. However, in addition to the 
documentation of Wharf J-10, this alternative would further lessen the significant impact of 
demolition of the historic resource by retaining aspects of the character of the existing structure 
through the reuse of its elements on the proposed replacement fish processing facility, although 
this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would also diminish the 
less-than-significant impact of new construction on the two other historic buildings at 2907-2909 
and 291 1 Jones Street that would remain following demolition of Wharf J-10. 

It is unlikely that this alternative would reduce potential impacts on archeological resources 
associated with new pile driving that would occur under this alternative in a manner similar to 
that of the proposed project, as this alternative, like the project, would entail construction of a 
new substructure. 

Effects related to hazardous materials would be the same as those with the proposed project. 



24 The Port's engineering contractor concluded that it was not possible to guarantee such a structure to support repairs 
to the Wharf s substructure. Holmes Culley Engineers, under contract by F. Alioto Fish Company, proposed to 
design a temporary substructure support system. While Holmes Culley identified an engineering concept when the 
Port solicited a proposal for a design contract, that firm submitted a proposed design contract that would have 
capped its liability at $250,000. Given that Port engineers and its independent contract engineers concluded that the 
design did not provide adequate protection for construction workers, the Port did not proceed with the contract.. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



94 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER VII 



DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



DEIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



FEDERAL AND STATE 
AGENCIES 

Office of Intergovernmental Mgmt. 

State Clearinghouse 

1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 

P.O. Box 3044 

Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 

Leigh Jordan, Coordinator 
Northwest Information Center 
Sonoma State University 
1303 Maurice Avenue 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 

Lucinda Woodward 

State Office of Historic Preservation 

Local Gov and Info Management Unit 

PO Box 942896 

Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

MilfbidWayreDaTaUsoaFAIA SHPO 
California Dept. of Parks and Recreation 
P.O. Box 942896 
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 

Pam Griggs 

State Lands Commission 

100 Howe Ave South, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 

Joe LaClair 
BCDC 

50 California St., #2600 
San Francisco, CA 9411 1 

Reg. Water Quality Control Board 
Priya Ganguli 
1515 Clay St., Suite 1400 
Oakland, CA 94612 

Reg. Water Quality Control Board 
Attn: Judy Huang 
1515 Clay St., Suite 1400 
Oakland, CA 94612 



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

333 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 



CITY AGENCIES 

Hon. Aaron Peskin 
Board of Supervisors 
City Hall, Room 244 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Hon. Michela Alioto-Pier 
Board of Supervisors 
City Hall, Room 244 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

San Francisco Planning Comm. 
Attn.: Linda Avery, Secretary 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Sue Lee, President 

Dwight S. Alexander, Vice President 

Michael J. Antonini 

Shelley Bradford Bell 

Kevin Hughes 

William L. Lee 

Christina Olague 

S.F. Landmarks Pres. Advisory Bd. 
Attn.: Andrea Green, Secretary 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Jeremy Kotas, Chair 

Lily Chan 

Robert Cherny 

Ina Dearman 

M. Bridget Maley 

Alan Martinez 

Suheil Shatara 

Elizabeth Skrondal 

Johanna Street 



San Francisco Port Commission 
Attn.: Amy Quesada, Secretary 
Pier One, The Embarcadero 
San Francisco, CA 9411 1 

Wilfred Hsu, President 

Michael Hardeman, VkePiesidert 

Sue Bierman 

Kimberly Brandon 

Ann Lazarus 

Mario S. Ballard, Captain 
BureauofFnePievertico&Investigation 
1660 Mission Street, 2nd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

LIBRARIES 

Stanford University Libraries 
Jonsson Library of Gov't. Docs. 
State & Local Documents Div. 
Stanford, CA 94305 

Government Publications Dept. 
S.F. State University Library 
1630 Holloway Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94132 
Hastings College Law Library 
200 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102-4978 

Institute of Government Studies 
109 Moses Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94720 

SF Public Library 
Government Information Ctr. 
100 Larkin Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjK203428 



95 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



GROUPS & 
INDIVIDUALS 

G Bland Piatt Associates 
Mrs. Bland Piatt 
362 Ewing Terrace 
San Francisco, CA 94118 

Charles Chase, Exec. Director 
San Francisco Architectural Heritage 
2007 Franklin St. 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Sue Hestor 
Attorney at Law 
870 Market St #1128 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Nancy Shanahan 

Planning and Zoning Comm. 

Telegraph Hill Dwellers 

224 Filbert Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 



Ms. Angela Cincotta 
Alioto-Lazio Fish Company 
440 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Mr. Tom Creedon 
Scoma's Restaurant 
Pier 47 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Arthur R. Albrecht 
President 

Lombard Hill Improvement Assn. 

1000 Lombard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109-1515 

Mr. Francisco J. Centurion 
Co-Chair, Design & Zoning Cmt. 
Russian Hill Neighbors 
2750 Polk Street, Apt. 3 
San Francisco, CA 94109 



Alessandro Baccari 
Executive Secretary 
Fish. Wharf Merchants Assn. 
1873 Market Street, Ste. 3 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Ms. Meg Reilly 

530 Chestnut Street, #407 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Mohammad Bazargani 
TRC Solutions 
5052 Commercial Circle 
Concord, CA 94520 

Mr. Jeff Hensel 
TRC Solutions 
21 Technology Drive 
Irvine, CA 92618 

Mr. Steve Pao 

ExxonMobil-Global Remediation 
3835 R E. Thousand Oaks Bl., #355 
Westlake Village., CA 91362 



DEIR NOTIFICATION LIST 



STATE AND REGIONAL 
AGENCIES 

California Dep't. of Fish and Game 
Central Coast Reg.-Habitat Consrv. 
Post Office Box 47 
Yountville, CA 94599 

Tim Sable, IGR CEQA Branch 
Office of Transportation Planning - B 
P.O. Box 23660 
Oakland, CA 94623-0660 

Dave Flores 

California Energy Commission 
1516 9th Street, Rm. MS40 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control 
Nina Antonio 

700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200 
Berkeley, C A 94710-2721 

Assoc. of Bay Area Governments 
Attn: Suzan Ryder 
P.O. Box 2050 
Oakland, CA 94604-2050 

Metropolitan Transportation Comm. 
Attn: Craig Goldblatt 
101 8th Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 



Mr. Alan Zahradnik 

G.Gate Bridge, Hwy. & Trans. Dist. 

1011 Andersen Drive 

San Rafael, CA 94901 

CITY AGENCIES 

Amy Lee, Acting Director 
Dapartrr^ofBuikinghspection 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Dwayne Jones, Director 
Mayers Cfc of CbmminityDevek^^ 
25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 700 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

John Deakin, Director 
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 
1 155 Market Street, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Jesse Blout 

Mayor's Ofc. Of Econ. Devel. 
City Hall, Room 448 
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 

Susan Leal 

Public Utilities Commission 

1155 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Daniel LaForte 

McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 

501 Stanyan Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 17 

Capt. Albert Pardini 
Planning Division Hall of Justice 
850 Bryant Street, Room 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Svetlana Karasyova 

San Francisco Recreation and Park Dept. 

501 Stanyan Street 

San Francisco, CA 94117-1898 

Barbara Moy 

Bureau of Street Use and Mapping 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 465 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Bond M. Yee 

Traffic Engineering Division 
25 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Pail D. Jones, Asa Deputy Chief 
Division of Support Services 
698 Second Street, Room 305 
San Francisco, CA 94107-2015 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:V03xjoS203428 



96 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Peter Straus 


Richard Mayer 


John Vaughan 


San Francisco MUNI 


NRG Energy Center 


Cushman & Wakefield 


1 145 Market Street, Suite 402 


410 Jessie Street, Suite 702 


1 Maritime Plaza, Suite 900 


San Francisco, CA 94103 


San Francisco, CA 94103 


San Francisco, CA 94111 


Steve Nickerson 


John Bardis 


John Elberling 


San Francisco MUNI 


Sunset Action Committee 


Yerba Buena Consortium 


875 Stevenson Street, Room 260 


1501 Lincoln Way, #503 


182 Howard Street, #519 


San Francisco, CA 94103 


San Francisco, CA 94122 


San Francisco, CA 94105 


Steve Legnitto 


Bruce White 


EIP Associates 


San Francisco Real Estate Dept. 


3207 Shelter Cove Avenue 


353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000 


25 Van Ness Avenue, 4th floor 


Davis, CA 95616 


San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 


San Francisco, CA 94102 








Alice Suet Yee Barkley 


Mary Anne Miller 


Daniel LaForte 


Luce Forward, Attorneys at Law 


San Francisco Tomorrow 


Recreation & Park Department 


121 Spear Street Suite 200 


1239 42nd Avenue 


501 Stanyan Street 


San Francisco, CA 94105 


San Francisco, CA 94122 


San Francisco, CA 941 17 








Bay Area Council 


Steven L. Vettel 


Laurence Komfield 


200 Pine Street, Suite 300 


Morrison & Foerster, LLP 


Dept. of Bldg. Inspection 


San Francisco, CA 94104-2702 


425 Market Street 


1660 Mission Street 




San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 


San Francisco, CA 94103 


Michael Dyett 






Dyett & Bhatia 


Vincent Marsh 


Matthew Franklin 


755 Sansome Street, #400 


Marsh and Associates 


Mayor's Ofc. of Housing 


San Francisco, CA 94111 


2134 Green Street, No. 3 


25 Van Ness Av., Ste 600 




San Francisco, CA 94123-4761 


San Francisco, C A 94102 


Georgia Brittan 






San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth 


Gensler and Associates 


Mark Luellen 


460 Duncan Street 


2 Harrison Street, Suite 400 


SF Planning Department 


San Francisco, CA 94131 


San Francisco, CA 94105 


1660 Mission Street, Ste. 500 






San Francisco, CA 94103 


Susan R. Diamond 


Richard A. Judd 




Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 


1300 Clay Street, 9th Floor 


One Market Plaza 


City Center Plaza 


INDIVIDUALS 


San Francisco, CA 94105 


Oakland, CA 94612-1455 


Bob Jacobvitz 


Jay Cahill 


Gerry Katz 


AIA San Francisco Chapter 


Cahill Contractors, Inc. 


Greenwood Press, Inc. 


130 Sutter Street 


425 California Street, Suite 2300 


P.O. Box 5007 


San Francisco, CA 94104 


San Francisco, CA 94104 


Westport, CT 06881-5007 


Chi-Hsin Shao 


Carol Lester 


Gruen, Gruen & Associates 


CHS Consulting Group 


Chicago Title 


564 Howard Street 


500 Sutter Street, Suite 216 


388 Market Street, 13th Floor 


San Francisco, CA 94105 


San Francisco, CA 94102 


San Francisco, CA 94111 








Melvin Washington 


James W. Haas 


Chinatown Resource Center 


Bayview Merchants Association, Inc. 


Civic Pride! 


1525 Grant Avenue 


P.O. Box 24505 


555 Montgomery Street, Suite 850 


San Francisco, CA 94133 


San Francisco, CA 94124 


San Francisco, CA 94110 








Coalition for S.F. Neighborhoods 


Sally Maxwell 


Mary Murphy 


P.O. Box 320098 


Maxwell & Associates 


Farella, Braun & Martel 


San Francisco, CA 94132-0098 


1522 Grand View Drive 


235 Montgomery Street 




Berkeley, CA 94705 


San Francisco, CA 94104 


Ruben Santiago 






P.O. Box 56631 


Peter Bass 




Hayward, CA 94545 


Ramsay/Bass Interest 






3756 Grant Avenue, Suite 301 






Oakland, CA 94610 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjX203428 



97 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



James Reuben 

Reuben and Alter 

235 Pine Street, 16th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Dennis Purcell 

Coblentz, Patch, Duffy and Bass 
222 Kearny Street, 7th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94108 

Regina Sneed 
National Lawyers Guild 
558 Capp Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110 

Jerry Tone 

Montgomery Capital Corp. 

244 California St. 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Larry Mansbach 
Mansbach Associates 
582 Market Street, Suite 217 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Dee Dee Workman 
San Francisco Beautiful 
41 Sutter Street, #709 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Jennifer Clary 

San Francisco Tomorrow 

P.O. Box 1579 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Environmental and Land use Section 

Pillsbury, Winthrop LLP 

50 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

San Francisco Group 

Sierra Club 

85 2nd Street, Floor 2 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 

Marie Zeller 
Patri Merker Architects 
400 Second Street, Suite 400 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Barbara W. Sahm 
Turnstone Consulting 
330 Townsend Street, Suite 216 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Gabriel Metcalf 
SPUR 

312 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 



Jim Ross 

Solem & Associates 

550 Kearny Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Walter Johnson 
San Francisco Labor Council 
1188 Franklin Street, #203 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Jan Vargo 

Kaplan/McLaughlin/Diaz 

222 Vallejo Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Dave Kremer 

Shartsis Freise & Ginsburg 
One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

John Kriken 

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP 
444 Market Street, Suite 2400 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Hartmut Gerdes 
Square One Productions 
1736 Stockton Street, Studio 7 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Stanley Warren 

S.F. Building & Const Trades Council 
150 Executive Park Blvd, Suite 4700 
San Francisco, CA 94134-3341 

The Jefferson Company 

10 Lombard Street, 3rd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-1 165 

Cliff Miller 

89 Walnut Avenue 

Corte Madera, CA 94925-1028 

J. Gordon Turnbull 

Page & Tumbull 

724 Pine Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Mrs. G. Bland Piatt 
362 Ewing Terrace 
San Francisco, CA 94118 

David P. Rhoades & Associates 

364 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2805 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 
235 Montgomery Street, 12th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94104-2902 



John Sanger, Esq. 

1 Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Sedway Group 

505 Montgomery Street, #600 
San Francisco, C A 941 1 1-2552 

Robert S. Tandler 

3490 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94118-1837 

Joel Ventresca 

1278 - 44th Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

Jon Twichell Associates 
70 Hermosa Avenue 
Oakland, CA 94618 

Stephen Weicker 
899 Pine Street, #1610 
San Francisco, CA 94108 

Calvin Welch 

Council of Community Housing 

Organizations 

409 Clayton Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 17 

Eunice Willette 
1323 Gilman Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

David C. Levy, Esq. 
Morrison & Foerster, LLP 
425 Market Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 

Paul Kollerer/Tom Balestri 
Cahill Construction Services 
1 599 Custer Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124-1414 

Andrew Tuft 

Singer Associates 

140 Second Street, 2nd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Diane Wong 
UCSF Campus Planning 
3333 California Street, Suite 1 1 
San Francisco, CA 94143-0286 

Dan Cohen 
EDAW 

150 Chestnut Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



98 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Brett Gladstone 
Gladstone & Associates 
177 Post Street, Penthouse 
San Francisco, C A 94108 

Jason Henderson 

S.F. State University 

1600 Holloway Avenue, HSS279 

San Francisco, CA 94132 

Linda Mjellem 
Union Square Association 
323 Geary St Ste 408 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Arnie Hollander 
The Lurie Company 
555 California St Ste 1500 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Patrick McGrew 
McGrew/Architects 
582 Market St Ste 908 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

J G Turnbull 

Page & Turnbull Inc 

724 Pine Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Charles Chase 

San Francisco Architectural Heritage 
2007 Franklin Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Debra Stein 
GCA Strategies 

655 Montgomery Street Ste 1700 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Dorice Murphy 

Eureka Valley Trails & Art Network 

175 Yukon Street 

San Francisco, CA 94114 

Courtney S. Clarkson 
Pacific Heights Residents Assn. 
3109 Sacramento Street 
San Francisco, CA 94115 

Shirley Albright 

Landmarks Council of California 
306 Arguello Blvd Apt 101 
San Francisco, CA 94118 

Winchell T Hayward 
Victorian Alliance CA Heritage 
208.Willard North 
San Francisco, CA 941 18 



Nancy Shan ah an 
Telegraph Hill Dwellers 
224 Filbert Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

California Heritage Council 

PO Box 475046 

San Francisco, CA 94147 

F Joseph Butler Architect 

1048 Union St #19 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Western Neighborhoods Project 
PO 460936 

San Francisco, CA 94146-0936 

The Art Deco Society of California 
100 Bush Street, Suite 511 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Carey & Co Inc. 
460 Bush Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 

Gerald D Adams 

152 Lombard St #404 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1134 

Fort Point & Presidio Hist. Assn. 

PO Box 29163 

San Francisco, CA 94129 

David P. Cincotta 
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro LLP 
Two Embarcadero Center, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Joseph B. Pecora 
882 Grove Street 
San Francisco, CA 94117 

Stewart Morton 
PO Box 641225 

San Francisco, CA 94164-1225 

Nunzio Alioto 
Alioto's Restaurant 
#8 Fisherman's Wharf 
360A Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Alessandro Baccari 
Fisherman's Wharf 
Merchants' Association 
430 West Portal Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94127 



Christopher Barnish 

H & N Foods International 

P. O. Box 24492 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Kirk Bennett 
Planning & Development 
Port of San Francisco 
Pier 1 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Phil Bentivegna 
"Butchie B" 
60 Rollingwood Drive 
San Rafael, CA 94901 

Michael Berline 
Berline & Associates 
555 Fulton Street, #201 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Eugene Bugatto 

California Shellfish Company 

P. O. Box 2028 

San Francisco, CA 94126 

Jeanette Caito 

Caito Fisheries, Inc. 

P. O. Box 2415 

San Francisco, CA 94126 

Arthur Chang 

P.O. Box 26709 

San Francisco, CA 94126 

Angela Cincotta 
Alioto-Lazio Fish Co.. 
440 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Stephanie Cincotta 
F. Alioto Fish Co. 
440 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Jennifer Clary 
San Francisco Tomorrow 
5537 Mission Street, #201 
San Francisco, CA 941 12 

Tom Creedon 
Scoma's Restaurant 
Pier 47 

San Francisco, CA 94133 
Lynn Cullivan 

S.F. Maritime Nat'l. Historic Park 
Ft. Mason, Bldg E, Rm 265 
San Francisco, CA 94123 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxX203428 



99 



Wharf J- JO Demolition and Improvements 



Philip De Andrade 
Congresswoman Pelosi's Office 
300 Channel Street, #12 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Ronald Duckhom 
Blue & Gold Fleet 
Pier 41 Marine Terminal 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Thomas C. Escher 
G.G. Scenic Steamship 
Red & White Fleet 
Pier 43 1/2 

San Francisco, CA 94133 
Liz Garcia 

Telegraph Hill Nghbrhd Center 
660 Lombard Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Tim Hastings 

S.F. Maritime National Park Assn 

P.O. Box 470310 

San Francisco, CA 94147 

Nick Hoppe 

DBA Cioppino's/The Bay Co 
496 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Elizabeth Jason Kibbey 

S.F. Maritime National Park Assn. 

Bldg. 35, Fort Mason 

P.O. Box 470310 

San Francisco, CA 94147 

Michael La Rocca 

A. La Rocca Seafood, Inc. 

Pier 45, ShedB-10 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Robert S. Macintosh 

Pier 39 Limited Partnership 

P.O. Box 193730 

San Francisco, CA 941 19 

Christopher Martin 
The Cannery 
2801 Leavenworth Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Nan Roth 

Telegraph Hill Dwellers 

1436 Kearny Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Robert Miller 

S.F. Crab Boat Owners Assn. 
859 Hacienda Way 
Millbrae, CA 94030 



Meg Reilly 

530 Chestnut Street, #407 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Frank Rescino 

F/V Lovely Martha 

218 Hazel wood Drive 

South San Francisco, CA 94080 

Sal Tarantino 

S. P. Tarantino Insurance Broker 
490 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Gail Miller 

S.F. Maritime National Park Assn. 

Building 35, Fort Mason 

P.O. Box 470310 

San Francisco, CA 94147 

William Thomas 

S.F. Maritime Nat'l. Historic Park 
Ft. Mason, Bldg E, Rm 265 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Kevin Westlye 
Franciscan Restaurant 
Pier 43 1/2 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Gerry Adams 

San Francisco Chronicle 

900 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Ms. Severin Campbell 
Budget Analyst's Office 
Board of Supervisors 
1390 Market Street, #1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Frances Chu 

Crab Station @ Fisherman's Wharf 
171 Leslie Drive 
San Carlos, CA 94070 

Nino Geraldi 
Fisherman's Grotto 
#9 Fisherman's Wharf 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Sal Guardino 
Guardino's Seafood Market 
#1 Fisherman's Wharf 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Paul R. Johnson 
Monterey Fish - Berkeley 
Pier 33, The Embarcadero 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Mr. Joe LaClair 
BCDC 

50 California St., #2600 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Lindy Lowe 
BCDC 

50 California St., #2600 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

David Lewis 

Save San Francisco Bay Assn. 
350 Frank Ogawa Plz, Suite 900 
Oakland, CA 94612 

June A. Osterberg 
722 Filbert Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Tim McDonnell 
Tarantino's Restaurant 
206 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Stewart Morton 

Russian Hill Improvement Assn. 

P. O. BOX 641225 

San Francisco, CA 94164 

Ilson W. New 
California Federal Building 
1801 Van Ness Ave., #350 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Mr. Jeffrey Pollack 
Original Fisherman's Wharf 
Restaurant Association 
1541 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Frank Sabella 

Sabella & LaTorre Seafoods 

2809 Taylor Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Ed Van Egri 

Russian Hill Improvement Assn. 

819 Francisco Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Mr. Darryll White 
Bike & Roll 
734 Lombard Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Jay Ach 
Maritime 

Port of San Francisco 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



100 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Fisherman's Wharf 
Merchants' Assn. 
430 West Portal Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94127 

Mr. Bob Battalio 
Philip Williams & Associates 
720 California St., #600 
San Francisco, CA 94108 

Ms. Jeanette Caito 
Caito Fisheries Inc. 
P. O. Box 2415 
San Francisco, CA 94126 

Ms. Angela Cincotta 
Alioto-Lazio Fish Company 
440 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Ms. Jennifer Clary 
San Francisco Tomorrow 
5537 Mission Street, #201 
San Francisco, CA 94112 

Mr. Tom Creedon 
Scoma's Restaurant 
Pier 47 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Lynn Cullivan 
S.F. Maritime Nat'l. Historic Park 
Ft. Mason, Bldg E, Rm 265 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Mr. Robert Miller 
S.F. Crab Boat Owners' Assn. 
859 Hacienda Way 
Millbrae, CA 94030 

Arleen Navarret 

Bureau of Water Pollution Control 

3500 Great Hwy 

San Francisco, CA 94132 

Hedley Prince 
Port of San Francisco 
Pier 1/The Embarcadero 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Tim Przygocki 

S.F. Maritime Nat'l. Historic Park 
Ft. Mason, Bldg E, Rm 265 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Ms. Meg Reilly 

530 Chestnut Street, #407 

San Francisco, CA 94133 



Jim Salerno 

Bureau of Water Pollution Control 

750 Phelps Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Alioto's Restaurant 
#8 Fisherman's Wharf 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

California Shellfish Company 

P.O. Box 2028 

San Francisco, CA 94126 

Castagnola's Restaurant 
286 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Coast Marine & Industrial Supply 
398 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Cory Gallery 

21 Tamal Vista Blvd. #204 
Corte Madera, CA 94925 

Crab Boat Owners Association 

2907 Jones Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

D & G Company 
300 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

F. Alioto Fish Co. 
440 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Franceschi's 

498 Jefferson Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Frank's Fisherman's Supply 
366 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Martell Insurance Company 
2190 Washington St., #305 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Pompei Enterprises Corp. 
c/o Pompei 's Grotto 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Scoma's Restaurant 
Pier 47 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Arthur N. Hoppe 

Cioppino's 

496 Jefferson Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 



Michael Martin 

General Petroleum Resources 

P.O. Box 499 

Long Beach, CA 90801 

Sal Tarantino 

S. P. Tarantino Insurance Brokerage 
490 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Next Seafood, Inc. 
Pier 45, Shed D3, Box 3 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Ms. Charlie Akwa 
North Atlantic San Francisco 
350 Bay St., Suite 100 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Donald Alber 
W. F. Alber, Inc. 
Pier 45, Shed B, Unit 4 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Christopher Bamish 
H & N Foods International 
P. O. Box 24492 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mr. Eugene Bugatto 
California Shellfish Company 
P. O. Box 2028 
San Francisco, CA 94126 

Mr. John Caito 
Caito Fisheries, Inc. 
P. O. Box 1370 
Fort Bragg, CA 95437 

Mr. Joseph Chua 
San Francisco Old Clam House 
299 Bayshore Boulevard 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Ms. Stephanie Cincotta 
F. Alioto Fish Co. 
440 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Barry Cohan 
Flannery Seafood 
3445 California Street 
San Francisco, CA94118 

Mr. Bob Costarella 
Costarella Seafood, Inc. 
P.O. Box 192484 
San Francisco, CA94119 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxtJ03428 



101 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Mr. William T. Dawson 
Seafood Supplies 
Pier 33, The Embarcadero 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Mr. Matts Engstrom 
Tsar Nicoulai Caviar, Inc. 
60 Dorman Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mr. Thomas C. Escher 
G.G. Scenic Steamship 
Red & White Fleet 
Pier 43 l A 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Jimmy Fong 
T. J. Nevada, LLC 
2382 - 47th Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94116 

Mr. Steve Goshtician 
Woodbine Alaska Fish Co. 
P. O. Box 757 
Rio Vista, CA 94571 

Mr. Fred Jiang 

Cod Seafood & Trading 

238 Morse Street 

San Francisco, CA94112 

Paul R. Johnson 
Monterey Fish Berkeley 
Pier 33, The Embarcadero 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Mr. Michael La Rocca 
A. La Rocca Seafood, Inc. 
Pier 45, Shed B-10 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Mr. Mike Lucas 

North Coast Fisheries, Inc. 

P. O. Box 8219 

Santa Rosa, CA 95407 

Hua Ngo 

H & N Foods International 
125 Bayshore Boulevard 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mr. Joe S. Passanisi 
640 Adler Court 
Sonoma, CA 95476 

Mr. Ronald J. Pezzolo 
Pezzolo Seafood 
6 Tyler Street 
Novato, CA 94947 



Mr. Tim Ports 
Ports Seafoods, inc. 
1440 Bancroft Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mr. Gerald Smith 
Seafood Producers Cooperative 
2875 Roeder Avenue 
Bellingham, WA 98225 

Mr. Daniel Strazzullo 
Peninsula Seafood of San Bruno 
DBA All Shores Seafood 
135 El Camino Real 
San Bruno, CA 94066 

Mr. John P. Tarantino 
Polar Ice Company 
56 Staghound Passage 
Corte Madera, CA 94925 

Mr. Sal Tringali 
Monterey Fish Company, Inc. 
1222 Merril Street 
Salinas, CA 93901 

Mr. Michael Weinberg 
Osprey Seafood Of CA, Inc. 
Pier 33, The Embarcadero 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Mr. Mohammad Bazar gani 

TRC Solutions 

5052 Commercial Circle 

Concord, CA 94520 

Mr. Roger Brewer 

Reg. Water Quality Control Board 

1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Mr. Charles E. Chase 

S.F. Architectural Heritage 
2007 Franklin Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
Ms. Angela Cincotta 

Alioto-Lazio Fish Company 
440 Jefferson Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
Mr. Tom Creedon 

Scoma's Restaurant 
Pier 47 

San Francisco, CA 94133 
Priya Ganguli 

San Francisco Bay Regional 
Water Quality Control Board 
1515 Clay St., Suite 1400 
Oakland, CA 94612 



Mr. Jeff Hensel 
TRC Solutions 
21 Technology Drive 
Irvine, CA 92618 

Ms. Lydia Huang 
Baseline Environmental 
5900 Hollis Street, Suite D 
Emeryville, CA 94608 

Mr. Steve Pao 

ExxonMobil-Global Remediation 
3835 R E. Thousand Oaks Bl., #355 
Westlake Village., CA 91362 

Ms. Meg Reilly 

530 Chestnut Street, #407 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Ms. Rona Sandler 

City Attorney's Office 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Mr. Jonathan Scheiner 
TRC Solutions 
5052 Commercial Circle 
Concord, CA 94520 

Mr. Terry Seward 
San Francisco Bay Regional 
\Water Quality Control Board 
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 
Oakland, CA 94623 

Mr. Todd Stanford 
TRC Solutions 

9301 Oakdale Avenue, Suite 210 
Chatsworth, CA 91311 

John Callan, Esq. 

Luce Forward Hamilton & Scripps 

Rincon Center II 

121 Spear St., Suite 200 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

David P. Cincotta, Esq. 

Jeffer Mangels et. al. 

Two Embarcadero Center, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Michael Rubenstein, Esq. 

Four Embarcadero Ctr. Ste. 1400 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Alessandro Baccari 
Executive Secretary 
Fisherman's Wharf Merch. Assn. 
1873 Market Street, Ste. 3 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



102 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VII. DRAFT EIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Brooke W. Sampson 
Director 

Cow Hollow Assn. 
2645 Filbert Street 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Deirdre Araujo 
Secretary 

Marina Merchants Association 
2269 Chestnut Street, #235 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Denise McCarthy 

Executive Director 

Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Ctr 

660 Lombard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Dr. Frank Hinman 
President 

Russian Hill Improvement Assn. 
1000 Francisco Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

El St. John 
Vice President 

SF'ans for Healthy Waterfront 
135 Townsend Street, Ste. 621 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Gene Morzenti 

Telegraph Hill Survival Assn. 

350 Green Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Gloria Fontanello 
President 

Marina Neighborhood Assn. 

1435 Bay Street 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Ian Lewis 

HERE Local 2 

209 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Jennifer Gridley 
Cow Hollow Assn. 
2611 Filbert Street 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Jim Lew 

P.O. Box 330115 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Joan Girardot 

Marina Improvement and Property 

PO Box 470790 

San Francisco, CA 94147-0790 



Judy West 

Program Administrator 
Art House 

Ft. Mason Center Bldg. C, Rm 255 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Karen Mclnnis 

1908 Green Street 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Lynn Jefferson 
North Beach Neighbors 
766 Francisco Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Marsha Garland 
Exec. Director 

North Beach Chmbr. of Commerce 
556 Columbus Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Hon. Michela Alioto-Pier 
Board of Supervisors 
City Hall Room #244 
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PI. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Hon. Aaron Peskin 

Board of Supervisors 

City Hall Room #244 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Mr. Arthur R. Albrecht 
President 

Lombard Hill Improvement Assn. 

1000 Lombard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109-1515 

Mr. Francisco J. Centurion 
Co-Chair, Design & Zoning Cmt. 
Russian Hill Neighbors 
2750 Polk Street, Apt. 3 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Nancy Shan ah an 

Planning and Zoning Comm. 

Telegraph Hill Dwellers 

224 Filbert Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Patricia Vaughey 

Marina/Cow Hollow Neigh & Merc 

2742 Baker Street 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

Paul Scott 
President 

Telegraph Hill Dwellers 

PO Box 330159 

San Francisco, CA 94133 



Peter Singh 
Vice President 
Marina Merchants Assn. 
2269 Chestnut Street, No. 235 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Sophie H. Wong 
1520 Stockton Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Azalia Merrell 

1015 Pierce Street, #1A 

San Francisco, CA 94115 

Katalin Koda 

P.O. Box 14034 

San Francisco, CA 94114-0034 

Toby Levine 

1366 Guerrero St. 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

MEDIA 

Bill Shiffman 

Associated Press 

303 2nd Street, #680 North 

San Francisco, CA 94107-1366 

Gabe Roth 

San Francisco Bay Guardian 

135 Mississippi Street 

San Francisco, CA 94107-2536 

San Francisco Business Times 
275 Battery Street, Suite 940 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Patrick Hoge 

San Francisco Chronicle 

901 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Gerald Adams 

San Francisco Chronicle 

901 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

John King 

San Francisco Chronicle 

901 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

The Sun Reporter 

1791 Bancroft Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124-2644 

Emily Fancher 
San Francisco Examiner 
450 Mission St., 5th Fl. 
San Francisco, C A 94105 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



103 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Improvements 



CHAPTER VIII 



APPENDICES 

A. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation 

B. Architectural Resources Group Design Review 

C. Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

G:\203xxx\201428 



104 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



APPENDIX A 

INITIAL STUDY AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjK203428 



A-1 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 



Date of this Notice: July 17, 2004 



Lead Agency: San Francisco Planning Department 

1660 Mission Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 
Agency Contact Person: Nannie Turrell Telephone: (415) 558-5994 



Project Title: 2001.0636E: Wharf J-10 Demolition and (Partial) Reconstruction 
Project Sponsor: Port of San Francisco 

Contact Person: Diane Oshima Telephone: (415) 274-0553 



Project Address: Wharf J-10, 2936 Hyde Street, north of Fish Alley 

Assessor's Block and Lot: A portion of Lot I, in Assessor's Block 007 
City and County: San Francisco 



Project Description (Wharf J-10; Portion of Lot 001, Block 007): The proposed project is located on land 
under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco (Port) located at 2936 Hyde Street on Wharf J-10, north 
of Fish Alley and Jefferson Street between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets. The project would include the 
demolition of the existing 24,400-square-foot (sq-ft) wharf, including substructure and pilings, as well as the 
existing approximately 21,000-sq-ft, 18-foot tall fish processing building. After demolition of Wharf J-10, 
the Port would improve the site by repairing the existing retaining seawall, creating a level surface along the 
north side of Fish Alley, and stabilizing the water's edge with rip rap.. 

After demolition, , the existing tenants of the site would have the option of rebuilding facilities to serve their 
businesses. Tenant improvements could include the proposed reconstruction, by an existing tenant, the F. 
Alioto Fish Company (F. Alioto), of a new, pile-supported, 17,3 12-sq-ft, 40-foot high fish processing 
facility, with 1,500 square feet (sf) of wharf along the Bay and by another existing tenant, California 
Shellfish Company (Cal Shell), improvement of an approximately 1,714-sq-ft unenclosed portion of the 
Wharf J-10 site for fish loading, staging, storage and support uses that serve their fish processing business 
across the street, on the south side of Fish Alley. In addition, the Port would construct an approximately 
3,435-sq-ft fish receiving wharf within a portion of the area now occupied by the existing fish processing 
building on Wharf J-10. The project would require the following approvals: (1) Port issuance of demolition 
and building permits; (2) Port Commission lease amendment(s), approval of and agreement to reconfigure 
leasehold premises, (3) Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) approval; and (4) Regional 
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, water quality certification. 

The project site is in a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Building Permit Application Number, if Applicable: None 



THIS PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. This determination is based upon the criteria 
of the Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Sections 15063 (Initial Study), 15064 (Determining 
Significant Effect), 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), and the following reasons, as documented 
in the Initial Study for the project, which is attached. 



PAUL MALTZER, Environmental Review Officer 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



1 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



WHARF J-10 DEMOLITION PROJECT 
INITIAL STUDY 
2001.0636E 



I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

PROJECT LOCATION 

The project site, Wharf J-10, is within the Fisherman's Wharf area of San Francisco's Northeastern 
Waterfront, an area adjacent to San Francisco Bay, which is characterized by fishing industry and 
restaurant and retail commercial uses. Wharf J-10 is at 2936 Hyde Street, situated between the Hyde 
Street Pier and its Commercial Fishing Harbor and Richard Henry Dana Place (an extension of 
Leavenworth Street), on the north side of Fish Alley, in the block to the north of Jefferson Street, as 
shown on Figure 1. The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, Waterfront 
Special Use District No. 1, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

The approximately 24,400-square-foot (sq.-ft.) project site is accessed by land from Fish Alley, north of 
Jefferson Street, and by water from within the Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon, a part of San Francisco Bay. 
The portion of Jefferson Street that borders Fish Alley is occupied by restaurants, an insurance brokerage, 
and fish processing buildings that are occupied by the F. Alioto Fish Company (F. Alioto) and California 
Shellfish Company (Cal Shell) (see Figure 2). Across Jefferson Street to the south is the Cannery, a 
shopping complex. The terminus to the Hyde Street Cable Car is located in Aquatic Park one block west, 
on the eastern side of Hyde Street. Access to the Hyde Street fishing harbor/marina, Wharf J-l 1, runs 
along the west side of Wharf J-10. 

EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS 

Wharf J-10 extends approximately 350 feet along the block bounded by Leavenworth Street, Hyde Street, 
Fish Alley, and the San Francisco Bay and comprises a wharf substructure and a building. The existing 
building on Wharf J-10 is a one-story plus mezzanine (approximately 18-foot tall), rectangular building 
that measures approximately 350-by-50 feet in dimension, with its greater dimension running east to west 
along Fish Alley. The building also has an approximately 30-by-50-foot addition attached to the 
southwestern corner of the building, abutting the Hyde Street Harbor access road. The structure is sited at 
the water's edge alongside the Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon (see Figure 3). Approximately 15 feet of the 
southern half of the wharf is located on the level upland portion of the site and is partially supported by a 
redwood timber retaining wall that defines the water's edge (a seawall). Approximately 35 feet of the 
northern half of the building and an additional 10-foot edge of wharf extends over the water (see 
Figure 4). The wharf substructure consists of a concrete platform supported on approximately 
173 creosote-treated 1 timber piles that have been driven into the sloping mudline of the bay. A timber 
retaining seawall underneath the wharf separates the land side of the wharf from the water side of the 
wharf. The wharf contains additional supporting elements such as stringers and pile cap beams. 



Creosote is a wood preservative used in a marine environment. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 



2 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 




Cross-Section (see Figure 4)- 



OUTER LAGOON 



Wharf Edge 



BUILDING J-10 



• Retaining Seawall 



FISH ALLEY 



Existing 
Franceschi Resturant 



Existing 
G.P. 
Resources 
Corp. 



Existing 
Alioto-Lazio 
Fish Co 
Building 



Existing 
California 
Shellfish Co. 
Building 



X— X 
X— X 



Existing 
Cioppino's 
Resturant 



50 



Feet 



JEFFERSON-6T 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction I 203428 B 

Figure 1 

Project Location 



3 



View 1 : View of north side of Jefferson looking west from Leavenworth Street 




Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction I 20347H ■ 

Figure 3 
View of Wharf J- 10 from 
Outer Lagoon, Looking South 



Wharf J-10 is currently connected to Wharf J-9 to the east and Wharf J-l 1 to the west. According to the 
Port's Fishery Wharf J-10 Facility Emergency Engineering Study, the existing wharf substructure is in an 
advanced state of deterioration. 2 The engineering study found that the concrete slab overlying the wood 
decking in the fish processing building is cracked and deteriorated due to differential movement, and that 
the existing wharf construction is deteriorated and not capable of supporting the 250-pound-per-square- 
foot (psf) live load required. In addition, supporting elements, such as the timber piers, stringers, and pile 
cap beams are failing (see Figures 5 to 7). The study further found that the structure is not capable of 
supporting the required 125-psf live load for the mezzanine and that the lateral bracing is not capable of 
bracing the building enough to be in compliance with current code lateral force requirements. The study 
concluded that the wharfs structural elements were in danger of collapsing and that the building was not 
safe for occupation. 

In August 2000, the Port of San Francisco (Port) issued a Notice to Vacate the fish processing building on 
Wharf J-10 and the supporting wharf substructure because of the potential for imminent collapse due to 
the deterioration of the substructure, and required the two fishing industry tenants (F. Alioto and Cal 
Shell) to vacate the site. Two other tenants had abandoned their leases a few years earlier. The Port then 
installed steel brace framing to temporarily shore up the northwest corner of the structure where there 
were large visible cracks in the exterior walls. Utilities to Wharf J-10 were cut off after the site was 
vacated in August 2000. 

Wharf J-10 has continued to deteriorate since the tenants were evacuated in August 2000. In November 
2002, Port engineers noticed further building deterioration during an inspection of the wharf substructure 
and building. The most recent deterioration occurred during December 2003, when between 500 and 
1000 square feet of the northwestern portion of the wharf decking collapsed into the water. Further 
damage occurred as a result of a fire on March 28, 2004. A site visit was conducted by a Port engineer on 
March 29, 2004, to ascertain the extent of the fire damage. The Port reported that three truss structures on 
the east end of the building appeared to be charred. Two of the trusses suffered minimal damage. 
However, the third truss suffered significant damage due to the loss of a cross sectional area 
approximately one-half inch around bracing members and the bottom chord member. In addition, 
approximately 5 to 10 percent of the roof was removed by the San Francisco Fire Department to access 
the building during the frre. No significant structural failures or hazards beyond those previously present 
resulted from the fire (Port of San Francisco, 2004). 

The Wharf J-10 fish processing facility and wharf substructure were constructed in 1919 by the State 
Board of Harbor Commissioners, the State agency that was the predecessor to the Port of San Francisco, 
to accommodate fish packing departments, storerooms and waterside docking facilities, as well as some 
accessory office use. The building remained in fishing industry use until it was condemned in August 
2000. The wood frame building was originally constructed of two-inch ship-lap wood siding and wood 
trusses, and is supported by wood piles on a wood substructure with a concrete topping slab floor. 



Port of San Francisco, Fishery Wharf J-10 Emergency Engineering Study, Revised Draft, undated. 



Case No. 200 1. 0636 E 



7 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



do 4» CD 




8 



■ CO 

oc <U D 




U 

d 
o 

9 



The building is Mission Revival in architectural design and has eight arched recessed openings on the 
north and south facades, as well as a red tile skirt-roof. Although the structure is extant, it is deteriorated, 
and has been altered on the interior and exterior over its approximately 85-year lifetime. Alterations 
include the construction of interior mezzanines and replacement of doors and windows, as well as repair 
of the east end of the building as a result of fire damage in 1997. Wharf J-10, along with two other 
structures in the Fish Alley area, appear to be collectively eligible for the California Register as 
contributors to a small potential historic district. 3 

Groundwater and saturated soil in the area are contaminated by petroleum, likely resulting from the 
former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal at 440 Jefferson Street, immediately south of the site across Fish Alley. 
Mobil (now Exxon/Mobil) has been monitoring groundwater at the site since 1992 in compliance with a 
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) order. 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

The Port proposes to demolish the fish processing building and wharf to abate an existing public health 
and safety hazard caused by the unsafe structure and its potential for collapse. Hazardous materials such 
as lead paint and asbestos have been removed. The Wharf J-10 structure would be detached from Wharf 
J-9 to the east and Wharf J-l 1 to the west prior to demolition. Most supporting piles would be removed, 
with the exception of approximately 34 existing wharf edge piles that would be used as marking piles for 
maritime purposes and for providing strength to the slope. However in order to provide the most 
conservative estimates of the impacts of pile removal under CEQA analyses, this environmental review 
assumes that all 173 piles would be removed. Piles to be removed would be saw cut six inches above the 
mudline, not pulled or fractured, to avoid disturbing sediments in the Bay. 

One existing Exxon/Mobil monitoring well would be affected by the proposed project and would have to 
be properly abandoned prior to demolition. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control 
Board (RWQCB) may require subsequent replacement of this well to allow continued groundwater 
monitoring. 

The proposed project would disturb soil up to two feet below ground surface, which is unlikely to be 
affected by existing groundwater contamination (see Section 12, Hazards). Soil would be stored on-site 
in a covered stockpile and properly characterized prior to disposal. 

Where the wharf intersects the land, the upper portion of the existing earth embankment is supported 
behind an existing retaining wall that is an integral part of the wharfs substructure. The existing 
retaining wall and rip-rap are to be maintained and repaired if necessary. If required to reduce the lateral 
forces on the retaining wall, soil would be excavated from behind the wall and the wall lowered, with rip- 
rap added to the resulting slope inland from the wall. In order to achieve the continuous 1:1-1/2 slope 
desired for protection and stability, the Port estimates that about 45 cubic yards (cys) of excavated soil 



Architectural Resources Group, Fish Alley Study Area Historic Resources Evaluation and Design Recommendations, 
September 2001. 



Case No. 200L 0636E 



11 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



would be removed and approximately 350 cys of rip-rap would be placed at this location (see Figure 8). 
A level surface would be created above the retaining wall and slope, with a bullrail (a large wooden beam 
bolted to the ground) separating the level surface from the existing Fish Alley roadway. Guard rails 
would be provided at each end of the rip-rap area at the transitions to Wharves J -9 and J-l 1. 

Demolition of the vacant fish processing building and removal of the damaged portion of Wharf J-10 is 
expected to commence within Summer/Fall 2004 and would take approximately 1 month to complete. 
The Port estimates the cost for the demolition to be approximately $766,000. 

After demolition, the tenants of Wharf J-10 and the Port have the option to rebuild facilities to support 
their businesses and fishing industry operations. , New construction would consist of the following 
elements (see Figure 9): 

1) A portion of Wharf J-10 would be reconstructed, including a new, pile-supported fish processing 
building for use by the F. Alioto Fish Company within its leasehold on the western side of the 
project site. Approximately 5,600 square feet of the proposed wharf would be constructed over 
the water — including an approximately 1,400-sq-ft wharf edge. The wharf would contain 
between 45 and 60 piles and a concrete deck. 4 The proposed fish processing building would 
contain a total of 17,312 sf, including approximately 9,822 sf on the "Wharf (ground floor) and 
mezzanine levels and 7,490 sf of area on the first floor (see Figure 10). Approximately 4,200 sf 
of the northern side of the building would be built on the portion of the wharf that is over the 
water and approximately 3,200 sf would be built on land on the southern side of the building. In 
addition, a 10-foot-wide wharf deck would span the entire length of the north side of the proposed 
building over the Bay. The proposed building would be approximately 40 feet in height, 
measured according to the San Francisco Planning Code, with limited roof elevations of 
approximately 44 feet above the main entrances on the north and south elevations (see Figure 1 1). 
This project element may require the pump station located at Jefferson and Leavenworth Streets 
to be upgraded in order to accommodate increased sewage from the proposed fish processing 
building. Upon project implementation, conditions at the pump station would be monitored and, 
if needed, the pump station would be upgraded to meet future water quality and utility standards. 

2) A 1,714-sq-ft concrete platform over the existing solid fill along the north side of Fish Alley 
would be used by the California Shellfish Company (Cal Shell) for purposes consistent with Cal 
Shell's leasehold, i.e., fish loading, staging, storage and support area serving Cal Shell's existing 
facilities on the south side of Fish Alley, near the corner of Leavenworth Street. The wharf 
building and substructure along this portion of the site would be demolished and replaced with 
the concrete platform inland of the retaining seawall. The top portion of the seawall would be 
removed and the remainder would be covered by rip rap in order to stabilize the shoreline. New 



The exact number of piles depends on the foundation plans, which have not yet been completed. For the purposes of this 
Initial Study, a generic set of parameters, based on standard engineering assumptions, were used to determine the numbei of 
piles that would be needed for the proposed building. If the project uses wood piles, the project would require approximately 
60 piles and fender piles. If concrete or steel piles are proposed, the project would require approximately 45 piles and fender 
piles. Because it has not yet been determined which existing piles are in good enough condition to support new construction, 
this Initial Study conservatively assumes that all existing piles would need to be removed. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



12 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



(aOE|d BUBQ AJU8H pjeipjy) 
133U1S 1HHOMN3AV3H 




OS C 

.§> 2 
E 00 

T3 

(D 
co 
O 
CL, 

O 
v_ 



CO 

o 

CO 
LT 
LU 
LL 
U_ 
UJ 



(U-riJ?MM) 

avoa ss30ov noauvH 



14 




C: p CO 

5 .H>E 
s fa 



■ o 

^ U - 



4— » CO 

O pl, 



< 

fa 

T3 

<D 

GO 

&fa 

8 

fa 



DO 
co 

CO 

iU 
O 
O 



V.W 
\ 

< 



i 






j t 
Ul 




! ; 


' -1 =K- 



15 



5- J 




i 



• i : 




°0 



3 o 
U 

3 oo 

to o 

o 



03 



< 

T3 

<D 
OO 

O 
Cu 
O 

S-i 



O -TS 

.22 M 

£ S 

"=3 O 

oo .22 

.5 > 

GO 

% rt 

O o 

go 



o 
o 

CO 



16 



facing class rip rap would be placed over the existing poor-quality rip rap, which would serve as 
an underlayment for the new rip rap. The new rip rap would be placed along approximately 
160 feet of the length of the slope, three feet inland between the existing seawall and the proposed 
concrete platform. The new rip rap would also be placed outboard of the existing seawall, 
extending between 10 to 25 feet into the Bay, with the narrowest width at the top of the slope and 
the widest width at the base of the slope, to establish a more stable shoreline. 

3) The Port would construct an approximately 3,435-sq-ft open deck fish receiving wharf on a 

section of the project site between the Hyde Street Harbor access road and the proposed F. Alioto 
fish processing facility. This wharf would be designed to allow future construction of a fish 
receiving building on top of the deck. 

Construction of these elements could begin after demolition in Fall 2004. The estimated cost of the Port's 
open deck fish receiving wharf is approximately $600,000. The estimated cost of proposed F. Alioto and 
Cal Shell improvements are not determinable at this time because no final plans are available. 

PROJECT SETTING 

The project site is along the northern edge of San Francisco's waterfront in the Fisherman's Wharf area 
adjacent to San Francisco Bay, an area that is dominated by the fishing industry and visitor-serving 
commercial land uses. Fisherman's Wharf, which is a major visitor attraction in San Francisco, 
encompasses approximately 374 acres of land and water generally bounded by the US Pier Head Line in 
the Bay to the north, Pier 35 on the east, Bay Street and Francisco Street to the south, and Municipal Pier 
(Aquatic Park) to the west. Most of the land (including the project site) is under the jurisdiction of the 
City and County of San Francisco, and roughly 10 percent is under the jurisdiction of the National Park 
Service as part of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, which includes the Hyde Street 
Pier and its fleet of national historic landmark vessels, a visitor center on the ground floor of the Argonaut 
Hotel at the comer of Hyde and Jefferson Streets, a maritime museum and library, Aquatic Park, and 
Municipal Pier. 5 

Nearby neighborhoods include North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and Russian Hill. Fort Mason, which is just 
west of Aquatic Park and is approximately one mile to the west of the project site, is part of the Golden 
Gate National Recreation Area and is under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. 

Historically, Fisherman's Wharf was a center for the fishing and maritime industries such as boat repair, 
maritime equipment supply, and fish processing and canning. Fisherman's Wharf is still a center of the 
San Francisco Bay Area's fishing industry and retains many fish handling and processing facilities, 
including 108,000 sf of new fish off-loading, handling and distribution space at Pier 45, approximately 
one-fifth of a mile east of the project site. In addition to Pier 45, the Hyde Street Commercial Fishing 
Harbor (Hyde Street Harbor), which is adjacent to the project site, constitutes another major element of 
the Fisherman's Wharf commercial fishing center. The Hyde Street Harbor extends into the Bay just 
beyond the Outer Lagoon at the northern terminus of Hyde«Street Harbor Access Road (see Figure 1). 



Municipal Pier was formerly part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, but responsibility for the pier was transferred 
to the Maritime National Historic Park in December 2003 (National Park Service (NPS) Visitor's Center, February 2004). 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



17 

203428 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Reconstruction 



The Hyde Street Harbor opened in 2001 with a total of 190 berths. Fishing-related uses are also 
assembled around Fish Alley, such as F. Alioto's and Cal Shell's operations along Jefferson Street 
between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets and Coast Marine and Industrial Supply, Inc. at the northeast 
corner of Jefferson and Leavenworth Streets. 

Jefferson Street, between Pier 39 and the San Francisco Maritime Museum National Historic Park 
(located at the western terminus of Jefferson Street roughly between Hyde Street and Van Ness Avenue), 
contains a high concentration of visitor-related commercial development. The north side of Jefferson 
Street is dominated by the fresh seafood restaurants, chowder houses, and crab shacks for which 
Fisherman's Wharf is well-known. The buildings along this side of Jefferson Street generally range 
between one to two stories. In addition, ferry services and bay cruises launch from the piers lining the 
north side of Jefferson Street, particularly at Piers 39 and 41. Visitor-serving retail uses, such as t-shirt 
and souvenir shops, dominate the south side of Jefferson Street. Other prominent destinations along the 
south side of Jefferson Street include The Cannery, an historic San Francisco Structure of Merit, and the 
Argonaut Hotel, a designated City Landmark, located on the block bounded by Jefferson, Beach, 
Leavenworth and Hyde Streets. The Cannery, a brick warehouse that was originally built as a peach 
cannery in 1907, was renovated in the 1960s into a shopping complex featuring clothing boutiques, art 
galleries, offices, restaurants, and a jazz club. The Argonaut Hotel borders The Cannery to the west and 
is located in the renovated historic Haslett Warehouse, a four-story timber and brick building completed 
in 1909 by the California Fruit Canners Association. In addition to a hotel, which opened in 2003, the 
Argonaut houses the Visitors Center for the San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park. In contrast 
to the one- to two-story buildings along the north side of Jefferson Street, buildings along the south side 
tend to be taller, at three to four stories in height. 

The San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park, including the Hyde Street Pier and Aquatic Park, is 
administered by the National Park Service; these facilities are roughly located at Hyde Street and the 
western end of Jefferson Street. The Maritime National Historic Park includes the San Francisco 
Maritime Museum, expansive green space with benches, trees, and walkways, and the terminus of the 
Powell-Hyde Cable Car line. The Hyde Street Pier Walkway exhibits historic boats, buildings, and other 
artifacts that are a part of Fisherman's Wharf maritime history. Aquatic Park is essentially a man-made 
cove enclosed by the broad curve of Municipal Pier just west of Fisherman's Wharf. Aquatic Park offers 
a location for swimming, canoeing, and similar types of water recreation. 

Ghirardelli Square, a designated City Landmark, is located just south, across Beach Street, from the 
Maritime National Historic Park. Ghirardelli Square is similar to The Cannery, in the sense that it is a 
former industrial building containing clothing boutiques, restaurants, art galleries, and a Ghirardelli 
Chocolate store. The building was built in the 1890s as a chocolate factory for Ghirardelli. In the early 
1960s, Ghirardelli moved its chocolate factory across the Bay to San Leandro and by the mid-1960s the 
building was restored and converted into its present use as a shopping complex. 

In addition to Ghirardelli Square, Beach Street, between Powell and Polk Streets, is a commercial corridor 
that continues the visitor industry uses of Fisherman's Wharf. Hotels, such as the Sheraton, the Courtyard 
Marriott, and Holiday Inn, are prominent features of Beach Street. Most of these hotels also contain 
ground-floor souvenir shops and restaurants. There are also several parking lots and garages along Beach 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



18 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Street. Exceptions to the visitor-serving commercial uses on Beach Street include the Longshoreman's 
Memorial Building at the southwest corner of Beach and Mason Streets and an office building at 
southeast corner of Beach and Hyde Streets. Joseph Conrad Square, located on a triangular lot bounded 
by Leavenworth, Beach, and Columbus Streets, is a small park containing benches, trees, and walkways. 
In addition, a small collection of low-scale (two- to three-story) residential buildings is located at the 
southwest corner of Hyde and Beach Streets. 

Along North Point Street, one block south of Beach Street, the high concentration of commercial uses 
typical of Jefferson and Beach Streets begins diminishing. Hotels, restaurants, and retail stores (i.e., 
North Point Center) are still the prominent uses between Mason and Leavenworth Streets. However, 
multi-family residential uses dominate the blocks west of Leavenworth Street and east of Mason Street. 
West of Leavenworth Street, the north and south sides of North Point Street contain low-scale (generally 
three-story) residential buildings. East of Mason Street, the south side of North Point Street is occupied 
by North Point Apartments — a large complex of four-story buildings containing 514 units. The Academy 
of Art College is located on the north side of North Point Street east of Stockton Street, across from the 
North Point Apartments. 

Bay Street continues the transition away from the dense visitor-serving commercial uses of Fisherman's 
Wharf and maintains the pattern of North Point Street with residential uses generally occupying the 
blocks west of Columbus Avenue and east of Powell Streets and commercial uses dominating the blocks 
between Columbus Avenue and Powell Street. The North Beach Apartments building is an exception to 
this pattern as it occupies two full blocks bounded by Bay and Francisco Streets and Mason Street and 
Columbus Avenue. North Beach Apartments, which is an affordable-housing complex, is currently under 
renovation. The renovation will increase the number of units from 229 to 341 and will add ground-floor 
retail, including a Trader Joe's grocery store. The renovation is slated for completion in November 2004. 

Public uses in the Fisherman's Wharf area include the North Point Wet Weather Treatment Facility at 
Bay and Kearny Streets and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) Kirkland Bus Yard at the 
northeast corner of Bay and Powell Streets. 

APPROVALS REQUIRED 

The proposed project would require the following approvals: 

• The Port must select a demolition contractor for the project. 

• The Port must issue a demolition permit for the proposed demolition. 

• BCDC must approve removal of the Wharf J- 10 substructure, the necessary repair of the retaining 
wall, and stabilization of the water's edge with rip-rap. 

• The RWQCB must authorize demolition/relocation of the groundwater monitoring well(s). 

■ 

• The Port Commission must approve a lease amendment to permit the F. Alioto proposed 
reconstruction. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



19 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



• The Port Commission must approve an agreement with Cal Shell to reconfigure its leasehold to 
occupy and use an area of the project site that extends parallel to the shoreline from the western 
boundary of its current leasehold to Leavenworth Street, between the retaining wall on the Bay 
side to the line of utility poles within Fish Alley. The area occupied by this reconfigured 
leasehold would be the same as under their current lease. 

• The Port must issue a building permit for the proposed F. Alioto building/ wharf, and the concrete 
platform for Cal Shell's fish processing operations. 

• BCDC must approve permits for any reconstruction. 

II. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

EFFECTS FOUND TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT 

The proposed project has been evaluated to determine whether it would result in significant 
environmental impacts. The project could have a significant effect on Cultural Resources, because it 
would result in the demolition of a building that has been identified as being a potential historic resource 
and could potentially effect submerged historic maritime resources. Historic architectural and 
archaeological resources will be analyzed in the EIR. 

EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 

All other items in the following Initial Study Environmental Evaluation Checklist have been checked 
"No," indicating that Planning Department staff has determined that the proposed project could not have a 
significant adverse effect on the environment other than for Cultural Resources. Several of the other 
checklist items have been checked "Discussed," indicating that the Initial Study text includes discussion 
about those particular issues. For all of the items checked "No" without a discussion, the conclusions 
regarding potential significant adverse environmental effects are based on field observation, staff 
experience and expertise on similar projects, and/or standard reference material available within the 
Planning Department, such as the California Natural Diversity Database and maps published by the 
California Department of Fish and Game. For each checklist item, staff considered both the individual 
and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. 

In evaluating the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, the Planning Department 
reviewed the Waterfront Land Use Plan (Waterfront Plan) EIR. The Waterfront Plan establishes land use 
policy for all property under the Port's jurisdiction. The project site is located v/ithin the area covered by 
the Waterfront Plan EIR. The Waterfront Plan EIR evaluated potential program-level environmental 
effects associated with implementation of the Waterfront Plan. The Waterfront Plan EIR noted that 
subsequent individual projects would undergo environmental review to determine whether they could 
generate project-specific impacts. Impacts identified in Waterfront Plan EIR and associated mitigation 
measures determined applicable to this project are incorporated in this Initial Study. 



Case No. 200 J. 0636 E 



20 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



The following potential impacts were determined either to be insignificant or to be mitigated to a less- 
than-significant level through measures included in the project. These items are discussed in Section III 
below, and require no further environmental analysis in the EIR: land use, visual quality, transportation 
impacts, population, shadow on public open space, wind tunnel effects, noise, air quality, utilities/public 
services, biology, geology/topography, water, energy, and hazards. 



III. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION 

Not 

A. COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND PLANS Discussed Applicable 

1) Discuss any variances, special authorizations, or changes proposed to the 

Planning Code or Zoning Map, if applicable. X 

2) Discuss any conflicts with any adopted environmental plans and goals of 

the City or Region, if applicable. X 



The proposed project would be subject to review according to local plans and policies, as well as by other 
agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project. This section discusses the zoning, plans and 
regulatory approvals that are relevant to review of the project. 



PLANNING CODE (ZONING) 

The San Francisco Planning Code (Planning Code), which incorporates by reference the City's Zoning 
Maps, governs permitted uses, densities and the configuration of buildings in San Francisco. Permits to 
construct new buildings (or to alter or demolish existing ones) may not be issued unless either the 
proposed action conforms to the Planning Code, or an exception is granted pursuant to provisions of the 
Planning Code, or a reclassification of the site occurs. The project would require demolition and building 
permits from the Port, because it would include demolition of an existing building and wharf structure, 
and construction of a new fish processing facility and wharf structure. 

The project site is within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This district allows a maximum building 
height of 40 feet, and does not place a limit on building bulk. 

The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District. C-2 Districts emphasize 
compatible retail uses with a variety of goods and services to suit the longer-term needs of customers with 
greater latitude given to the provision of automobile-oriented uses. They provide convenience goods and 
services to both outlying and closer-in, denser residential areas of the City and they can provide 
comparison shopping goods and services to a citywide or regional market. 

The project site is also located in the Waterfront Special Use District (WSUD) No. 1, Maritime Uses and 
Related Accessory Uses, which contains land use provisions that overlay the C-2 District as described in 
Section 240. 1 of the Planning Code. These provisions permit maritime and related accessory uses within 
WSUD No. 1 that require access to or use of the San Francisco Bay in order to function or operate in the 
normal course of business, including waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries and recreation. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



21 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



PLANS AND POLICIES 



In addition to the San Francisco Planning Code and zoning policies, the project site is subject to the 
San Francisco General Plan, the Waterfront Land Use Plan, and the San Francisco Bay Plan. 

SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN 

The San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) contains general policies and objectives to guide land use 
decisions, and contains some policies that relate to physical environmental issues. Sections of the General 
Plan that apply to the proposed project include the Urban Design Element, Recreation and Open Space 
Element, and the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan. 

In the General Plan's Urban Design Element, conservation policies call for preserving notable landmarks 
and areas of historic, architectural or aesthetic value, and promoting the preservation of other buildings 
and features that provide continuity with past development. The policies stipulate that older buildings that 
have significant historical associations, distinctive design or characteristics exemplifying the best in past 
styles of development should be permanently preserved. They call for more fully developed criteria for 
determination of historic significance and design value, with attention both to individual buildings and to 
districts, and that efforts for preservation of the character of landmarks should extend to their 
surroundings as well. The policies state that preservation measures should not, however, be entirely 
bound by hard-and-fast rules and labels, because to some degree all older structures of merit are worthy of 
preservation and public attention; and therefore, various kinds and degrees of recognition are required. 

The General Plan's Recreation and Open Space Element calls for providing continuous public open space 
along the shoreline unless public access clearly conflicts with maritime uses or other uses requiring a 
waterfront location. For Fish Alley, it proposes maintaining the existing authentic character of Fish Alley 
north of and parallel to Jefferson Street, which supports a viable fish processing industry. It calls for 
improving public access along the wharves when compatible with public safety and fishing operations. 
The Recreation and Open Space Element also recommends maintaining and improving view corridors 
from public rights of way to fish processing areas, the outer lagoon, open waters of the Bay, and back to 
the City. Specifically regarding the project site, the Recreation and Open Space Element states that a 
pedestrian promenade should not be provided along the shoreline between Hyde and Jones Streets 
because of the fish processing activities along the Hyde Street Pier and Fish Alley; rather the promenade 
should continue along the north side of Jefferson Street. 

Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan 

The General Plan's Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan (Area Plan) calls for encouraging the retention and 
expansion of the commercial fishing and related activities in Fisherman's Wharf, and for maximizing 
views of the water and of waterfront activity. The Area Plan calls for providing a continuous system of 
parks, urban plazas, water-related public recreation, shoreline pedestrian promenades, pedestrian 
walkways and street greenways; and for providing as much public open space and peripheral access as is 
feasible in areas of maritime activity without interfering with the operation of this activity. It 
recommends preserving the historic maritime character of the Fisherman's Wharf area, and retaining 
older buildings of architectural merit or historical significance to preserve the architectural and historical 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



22 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



character of the waterfront and ensure the compatibility of new development. The Area Plan calls for 
maintaining the fishing industry character in Fish Alley by preserving or increasing the level of fishing- 
related activities to the maximum feasible extent; for encouraging preservation and restoration of the 
maritime character of Fish Alley; and for providing a museum of the fishing industry and/or Wharf 
history in Fish Alley or elsewhere in the Wharf. Similarly, the Commerce and Industry Element includes 
maritime policies, one of which specifically promotes expansion of the fishing industry in the Hyde Street 
Harbor and Pier 45 area. 

The proposed demolition and reconstruction of the fish processing building and Wharf J- 10 would be 
consistent with some, but not all, applicable General Plan policies. The General Plan contains many 
policies, which may address different goals. The proposed project would remove a fish processing 
building that has been identified as having some historical importance (albeit one no longer suitable for 
fish processing, due to its condemnation and functional characteristics), and would not, therefore, be 
consistent with the urban design objectives and policies of the Northeastern Waterfront Plan. Impacts 
associated with this inconsistency will be discussed in the Cultural Resources section. However, 
reconstruction of the fish-processing building and a portion of the wharf would promote the goals of the 
Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan for retaining the fish industry in Fish Alley. 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT LAND USE PLAN 

The Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan (Waterfront Plan) establishes land use policy for all property under 
its jurisdiction, extending from the north end of Fisherman's Wharf south to India Basin, including the 
Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront Subarea. The Port adopted the Waterfront Plan in June 1997, with Fish 
Alley Amendments adopted in October 2001. The objectives and goals of the Waterfront Plan are 
consistent with those of the San Francisco General Plan. This project, therefore, will not be subject to a 
Planning Commission review for plan consistency, but will be subject to a Port Commission review for 
plan consistency. The Waterfront Plan calls for restoring and expanding Fisherman's Wharf as a working 
fishing port; attracting revenue-generating new uses to help support fishing industry and public activities; 
and providing space for the existing and future needs of other maritime activities at the Wharf. It also 
calls for continuing to integrate public, commercial, and maritime activities to preserve and enhance the 
diversity of uses at the Wharf; encouraging activities that will facilitate use of the area by local residents 
and diminish the Whaif s image as a "tourist-only" attraction; and rationalizing and enhancing the public 
access and open space program at Fisherman's Wharf. The Waterfront Plan encourages improvements 
that would enhance the waterfront's historic character, while also creating new opportunities for San 
Franciscans to integrate Port activities into their daily lives. The Waterfront Plan Fisherman's Wharf 
Acceptable Land Use Table identifies Fishing Industry, Ship Repair, Public Access, Retail Sales only for 
Fish, and Community Facilities as acceptable uses for the northern portion of Fish Alley, which includes 
Wharf J- 10. 

Fish Alley Amendments 

The Waterfront Plan Development Standards for Fish Alley are: 

■ 

• Preserve the existing balance between fishing and commercial uses. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 



23 

203428 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Reconstruction 



• Preserve the small scale maritime-industrial character of Fish Alley by retaining the older 
buildings to the extent possible consistent with continuing fishing industry operations, and 
adapting them to the needs of and use by modern fishing-related businesses. In the event a 
building cannot be retained, then any replacement building must be consistent with the 
Waterfront Design and Access Element and maritime industrial character of the area. 

• In the Fish Alley Area, continue to give priority to fish processing and distribution; restaurants 
and bars oriented towards the fishing industry, businesses and citizens in the area; chandleries; 
other businesses serving the fishing industry; and support services for the proposed Hyde Street 
Harbor. 

• Create a direct connection between the Hyde Street Harbor and Fish Alley. 

• Operate and manage activities to ensure compliance with all applicable environmental and water 
quality laws and regulations. Coordinate compliance efforts with the Fisherman's Wharf 
Environmental Quality Advisory Committee (EQAC). 

The Waterfront Plan's Waterfront Design and Access Element, in the Historic Resources section of its 
Design & Access Policies, inventories the waterfront's historic resources and presents Port-wide historic 
resources policies, along with policies for the most significant waterfront resources in areas including 
Fisherman's Wharf. It calls for nominating significant historic resources to the National Register of 
Historic Places; preserving and adaptively reusing significant historic resources where feasible; helping 
San Franciscans understand and enjoy their heritage by providing interpretive signage and informational 
displays about the waterfront's cultural and natural history; and requiring development of the waterfront 
to be compatible with historic resources. The Waterfront Plan Design and Access Element calls for 
recognizing the Fish Alley area as an Architectural Character District with area-specific design criteria 
that are (based on the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation) related to maintaining views as 
well as massing, scale (i.e., limiting the height of new development within Fish Alley to two stories), site 
coverage, articulation and character of new development, as well as alterations and additions. 

Specific design criteria include: 

• Existing views should be maintained by limiting the height of new development within Fish 
Alley to two stories; 

• View corridors down Jones and Leavenworth Streets should be maintained by discouraging new 
development along these two streets within Fish Alley; 

• Articulate the massing of new development and additions so that they respect the building widths, 
heights, and simple massing and detailing of Fish Alley's existing buildings; 

• The footprint of new development and additions to existing buildings along Jefferson Street 
should extend the width of the lot with no side setbacks so that the continuity of the street facade 
wall is maintained; 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



24 

203428 



Wharf J- JO Demolition and Reconstruction 



• The front setbacks of new development along Jefferson Street should vary slightly in keeping 
with existing architectural pattern; 

• The placement of infill development on the interior of the Fish Alley Study area should not 
encroach on the boundaries of the narrow alleyways, and should serve to enhance the delineation 

of the edges; 

• Appreciate the scale that the typical building heights of neighboring buildings contribute to the 
character of the streetscape by holding new development to two stories or less; 

• Opening patterns should be designed to communicate a human scale to pedestrians by articulating 
floor levels, or through glazing divisions; 

• New development or additions should respect existing patterns and proportions of alternating 
openings and solidity of walls; 

• Maintain the horizontal orientation of existing patterns throughout Fish Alley by aligning the 
horizontal elements of new development and additions with those of existing buildings; 

• New development and additions should be constructed with simple, industrial materials that 
typify those found throughout Fish Alley; 

• Varying building materials between existing buildings and additions is encouraged to visually 
distinguish new from old; 

• New signage within the Fish Alley Study area should be kept simple and small scaled. The 
design of new signage should be in keeping with the historic signs of Fish Alley. Painted wood 
signs hung off the buildings or painted directly on the buildings are encouraged. Neon signs are 
not appropriate for the Fish Alley Study area; 

• Site furnishings and landscaping should be kept minimal and simple, and should reflect the 
industrial and maritime character of the Fish Alley Study area; 

• New landscaping within the Fish Alley Study area should be limited to small scaled plantings in 
planter boxes, and should not include street trees. 

The project's consistency with these design criteria will be evaluated in the Cultural Resources analysis of 
the EIR and will include a discussion of the project's consistency with the Design and Access Element of 
the Fish Alley Area Design Criteria by Architectural Resources Group (ARG), an historic preservation 
firm contracted by the Port to conduct an architectural and historic resource evaluation of the Fish Alley 
area. 

As with the General Plan, the proposed demolition of the fish processing building is consistent with some, 
but not all, of the above Waterfront Plan and Fish Alley Amendment policies. The Waterfront Plan 
policies call for the retention of historic structures if such retention is found feasible by the Port. The 
proposal to demolish the existing fish processing facility, which has been identified as a potential 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



25 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



contributing resource to a historic district, would not be consistent with some of the Waterfront Plan 
policies. Reconstruction of the fish processing facility and wharf would promote continued use of Fish 
Alley for the fishing industry. 

The proposed new fish processing building would be a two-story, 40-foot-tall structure and would be 
approximately 20 feet taller than the existing development on Fish Alley and Jefferson Street between 
Hyde and Leavenworth Streets (see Figure 1 1). In addition to consideration of inconsistencies that raise 
environmental issues, potential inconsistencies with the Waterfront Plan are considered by the Port 
Commission independently of the environmental review process, as part of the decision to approve or 
disapprove a proposed project. Any potential conflict not identified in this environmental document 
could be considered in that context, and would not alter the physical environmental effects of the 
proposed project. 

SAN FRANCISCO BA Y PLAN 

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) San Francisco Bay Plan 
(Bay Plan) and its San Francisco-specific amendment, the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan 
(SAP), contain many policies for the San Francisco waterfront. The Bay Plan and SAP encourage 
maximum feasible public access to the Bay shoreline consistent with the proposed project and 
minimization of Bay fill. The SAP has policies and sets forth permitted uses on new or replacement fill 
along the waterfront. 

The SAP (as amended) in its Geographic Specific Policies and Recommendations for Hyde Street Pier 
through Pier 43, states that Fish Alley, located between the Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45, is the center of 
commercial fishing activity in San Francisco. Permitted Uses on New or Replacement Fill include 
Replacement of Existing Bay-Oriented Commercial Recreation; Breakwater; Berthing and Docking 
Facilities for Commercial Fishing Boats; Public Access; and Maritime. The SAP calls for improving and 
expanding Fish Alley facilities to serve the commercial fishing fleet, and maintaining and enhancing the 
area as a center for commercial fishing uses. It calls for permitting improved berthing, docking, and 
related activities for commercial fishing boats, including necessary sanitation facilities. The SAP 
recommends modernizing and improving the existing wharves and seawall lots for fish processing, 
marine repair and supply, and Bay-oriented commercial recreation, with fish processing predominant on 
the Bay side of these parcels. 

The proposed project would be generally consistent with the SAP's policies that call for the 
modernization or improvement of the existing wharves and fishing facilities. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



26 

20.1428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



B . ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 



1) Land Use - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of 

an established community? X X 

(b) Have any substantial impact upon the existing 

character of the vicinity? X X 

The project would neither displace any existing uses nor disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the 
Fisherman's Wharf area. The approximately 24,400-square-foot project site is occupied by the existing 
vacant fish processing building. The project would demolish this building and replace it with a level 
surface, rip rap edge, and guardrail; or one or all of the following elements: a new fish processing facility, 
a concrete platform to replace fish handling operations, and an open deck fish receiving wharf. The 
proposed uses would retain uses on the site that existed before the building was condemned, would be 
consistent with the character of the Fisherman's Wharf area, and would not have a substantial, adverse 
impact on the area's land use or to divide or disrupt an established community. As shown in the 
discussion, there would be no significant impacts on land use, therefore, no further analysis is required in 
the EfR. 



2) Visual Quality - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative 

aesthetic effect? X X 

(b) Substantially degrade or obstruct any scenic 

view or vista now observed from public areas? X X 

(c) Generate obtrusive light or glare substantially 

impacting other properties? X X 

The aesthetic effects from the loss of the historic architectural features of the existing building and of the 
compatibility of the proposed new construction with the historic context of Fish Alley will be analyzed in 
the EIR. With respect to the proposed new fish processing building, the western portion of the project site 
would be reconstructed with a facility that would be approximately 40 feet tall. The proposed structure 
would be approximately twice as tall as the existing building and, unlike the existing building, the second 
story of the building would be visible from Jefferson Street. Although the building would be a two-story 
structure similar to the other buildings in the area, it would be 40 feet tall, exceeding the general building 
height profile currently existing along Fish Alley. 

However, because the building would sit approximately 150 feet back from Jefferson Street, the taller 
height of the proposed building would not appear to be dramatically different compared to the buildings 
along Jefferson Street. When looking directly toward the project site only a small portion of the second 
story of the proposed building would be visible through an undeveloped lot on Jefferson Street (see 
Figure 12). The remainder of the proposed building would be blocked from view by the existing 
buildings along Jefferson Street. Under existing conditions, views of the roof of the existing building can 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



27 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



". fa*- 

* o 

I < 




U- 












3 §j 









■1 ;^i:. : <VV-^. - ; ' 

' i li 




28 



only be seen from the south side of Jefferson Street in front of the undeveloped lot. Oblique views of 
Jefferson Street in Figure 2 (p. 4), demonstrate that the project site is not visible from either end of the 
street. It is unlikely that the top of the proposed building would be visible above the rooflines of the 
buildings along Jefferson Street from these viewpoints. 

Under the proposed project, views of the project site from the Bay would change from those of the 
existing fish processing facility to views of the backs of the buildings along Jefferson Street (see 
Figure 13). Views would change from the uninterrupted facade of Wharf J-10 to views of a collection of 
buildings with different heights and massing. Although views would change, this would not be 
considered a significant adverse impact on the visual quality of the area because the proposed project 
would not affect any existing significant vistas, nor would the proposed project have a substantial, 
demonstrable negative aesthetic effect, because the views would be consistent with the existing Fish 
Alley character. In addition, the proposed project would open up opportunities for new views of the Outer 
Lagoon from Fish Alley (see Figure 14). If the other project elements are implemented, views from the 
Bay would include views of a fish processing building similar in style to the existing building on the 
western half of the site, while the eastern half of the site views would include intermittent views of the 
backs of some of the existing buildings along Jefferson Street, including Cioppino's Restaurant, 
California Shellfish Co., and the Alioto-Lazio Fish Co. Building. Although the proposed F. Alioto fish 
processing facility would be taller than the existing structure, it would not block any existing view 
corridors. 

Other elements of the proposed building would be consistent with the existing structure, including 
patterns of alternating openings and solidity of walls. The level roofline of the proposed building with a 
mission-tiled parapet is in keeping with the horizontal rhythms of Fish Alley, and the building materials 
would include wood siding that would be consistent with the style of the existing building. Although 
visual quality is subjective, it cannot be concluded that the proposed project would result in a substantial 
negative effect, or that it would substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and its 
surroundings. The project would not substantially degrade any scenic vista now observed from a public 
area. Overall, the proposed building would not result in a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic 
effect. In addition, because the proposed building would be located behind the one- to two-story 
buildings along Jefferson Street, it would not obstruct any existing scenic views or view corridors. 

The eastern portion of the wharf would not be fully reconstructed, nor would a new building be built 
there. Instead, Cal Shell would lay a concrete platform on the upland portion of the wharf for use as a 
staging area to support its operations on the south side of Fish Alley. Because the concrete slab that is 
proposed for the eastern portion of the project site would be about the same height as the existing Fish 
Alley, the project could result in some new close-up views of the Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon from Fish 
Alley. However, the site would not be readily accessible and would also be occupied by trucks and other 
equipment necessary for Cal Shell's operations that would intermittently obstruct views to the 
Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon. 

The views of Wharf J-10 from public access areas at the Hyde Street Harbor would change as discussed 
above regarding views from the Bay. However, the reconstruction proposals all include working fishing 
industry uses that could continue to be observed from those existing public access areas. From public 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



29 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Rear facades of existing buildings along Fish Alley that would be visible from bay after demolition of Wharf J-10 




Rear facades of fishing related businesses along Jefferson Street between Jones and Leavenworth Streets 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 



30 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction I 20.U2S ■ 

Figure L3 

Future Views of Fish Alley from the Hay 
after Demolition of Wharf J 10 



areas such as sidewalks along Jefferson Street and other nearby locations in Fisherman's Wharf, views 
would remain essentially the same, due to the other existing fish processing buildings, commercial 
buildings, and fences along Jefferson Street that obstruct views of the project site. Only the second story 
of the proposed new fish processing building would be visible over a portion of the vacant lot on 
Jefferson Street between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets. 

Implementation of the proposed project would require use of construction equipment and temporary 
structures and materials that could degrade existing views. However, this would be a temporary effect and 
would not be considered a significant view impact. 

The project would comply with City Planning Commission Resolution 9212, which prohibits the use of 
mirrored or reflective glass. It is assumed that the proposed fish processing facility would not use 
building materials that would result in glare affecting other properties; therefore, no further analysis is 
required. 

As shown in the discussion, there would be no significant impacts on visual resources; therefore, visual 
resources will not be further analyzed in the EfR. 



3) Population - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Induce substantial growth or concentration of 

population? X X 

(b) Displace a large number of people (involving 

either housing or employment)? X X 

(c) Create a substantial demand for additional 
housing in San Francisco, or substantially 

reduce the housing supply? X X 

The project site is vacant, and the proposed project would have no discernible effect on population growth 
or concentration in the neighborhood, city or region. Employment would temporarily increase in the area 
during project demolition and construction, and approximately 30 employees could work in the F. Alioto 
fish processing facility upon project completion. 6 This does not represent a substantial increase in 
employee population for the area. Thus, project-related employment does not require further analysis. In 
addition, because the project site was condemned and no employees have been working at the project site, 
no employees would be displaced by the proposed project. 

The project would not include residential uses or any other features that would contribute to a change in 
resident population. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing units, or introduce any 
new housing in the area. As shown in the discussion, population effects would not be significant, and 
therefore, will not be analyzed further in the EfR. 



Employment density estimated at 567 sq. ft. per industrial employee, based on: San Francisco Planning Department, 
"Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Review," October 2002. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 



32 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



4) Transportation/Circulation - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 



(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial 
in relation to the existing traffic load and 

capacity of the street system? X X 

(b) Interfere with existing transportation systems, 
causing substantial alterations to circulation 

patterns or major traffic hazards? X 

(c) Cause a substantial increase in transit demand 
which cannot be accommodated by existing or 

proposed transit capacity? X 

(d) Cause a substantial increase in parking demand 
which cannot be accommodated by existing 

parking facilities? X 

Under the proposed project, the existing vacant Wharf J- 10 building would be demolished and replaced 
with a level surface, guardrail, and rip rap. Demolition and construction would have intermittent 
temporary traffic impacts caused from truck movements to and from the project site. Truck movements 
during peak commute hours would have greater potential to create conflicts than during nonpeak hours 
because of the greater numbers of vehicles on the streets. The intensity and nature of construction activity 
would vary over the construction period, and the effects of added truck traffic on area roadways would 
likewise vary. Because truck trips during construction would be spread over the workday, the temporary 
impact on traffic flow would be less than significant. There also would be temporary parking impacts 
caused by construction workers' vehicles at the project site. 

Once demolition and construction is completed, it is not expected that traffic conditions in the area would 
change noticeably. However, the proposed F. Alioto fish processing facility, assuming it is constructed, 
would bring approximately 30 new employees to the project site, and would result in additional truck 
activity required for fish delivery and distribution. Given the nature of the fish processing industry, 
operational trips generated by employees and truck deliveries would primarily occur during early morning 
hours when the fishing boats return and trips generated by the project would not occur after the fish 
processing facility closes for the day. Because the project would add no new traffic during the 
afternoon/evening peak traffic period (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.), and most new trips would arrive before the 
morning peak traffic period (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.), the operational traffic of the project would have a less- 
than-significant effect on transportation or circulation conditions in the Fisherman's Wharf area. The 
proposed Cal Shell dock area would be an adjunct to Cal Shell's existing operation across Fish Alley and 
would not result in a substantial increase in activity or traffic. The Port's proposed receiving wharf could 
add a small increase in activity and traffic (less than the F. Alioto facility), which would similarly not 
result in adverse peak-hour impacts. 

As shown in the discussion, there would be no significant impacts on transportation or circulation, 
therefore transportation and circulation will not be analyzed further in the EIR. Even though the impacts 
on transportation would be less than significant, the following improvement measures have been 
included. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



33 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Transportation/Circulation Improvement Measures 

Consistent with standard practice, the project sponsor(s) and the construction contractor(s) would meet 
with the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT), which includes 
representatives from City departments, including Parking and Traffic, Police, Public Works, and Muni, to 
determine feasible traffic management measures to reduce the potential traffic congestion associated with 
the construction activities of this project and other nearby projects, including transit disruption and 
pedestrian circulation, . To minimize cumulative traffic impacts due to lane closures during construction, 
the project sponsor would coordinate with construction contractors for any concurrent nearby projects that 
are planned for construction or which later become known. A street space permit, enforced by the Bureau 
of Street Use and Mapping within the Department of Public Works, would be required to utilize public 
street space during project construction. The specific provisions of the permit would address issues of 
circulation, safety, parking and others, as developed in the above-cited meeting with ISCOTT. 
Conditions of the street space permit/agreement would be enforced by inspectors from the Department of 
Building Inspection. 

In addition, the Port's WLUP EIR (p. 647-648) contains improvement measures to ensure that new 
projects proposed in areas of the waterfront under the Port's jurisdiction conform with the goals and 
policies of the WLUP. Transportation improvement measures from the WLUP are mostly concerned with 
improving pedestrian and bicycle circulation, including, but not limited to, removing sidewalk 
obstructions, providing adequate crosswalks, and implementing a light rail line. These improvement 
measures are not applicable to this project. 

As mentioned above, the proposed project would not have significant impacts on transportation and 
circulation. Therefore, this topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 



5) Noise - Could the project: Yes 

(a) Increase substantially the ambient noise levels 
for adjoining areas? 

(b) Violate Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, if 
applicable? 

(c) Be substantially impacted by existing noise 
levels? 



Sensitive Noise Receptors 

Sensitive noise receptors, i.e., pedestrians and users of outdoor recreational space, may be located 
outdoors at Aquatic Park to the west behind the Hyde Street Pier, which is adjacent to the project site. 
The closest residences are located at the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets, approximately two blocks 
south of the project site. Other nearby residences are located approximately three or more blocks away 
along North Point Street, between Leavenworth and Larkin Streets. The project area also includes 
numerous hotels, one of which, the Argonaut Hotel, is one block south of the project site on Jefferson and 
Hyde Streets, and another approximately two to three blocks southeast of the project site on Beach Street 



No Discussed 
X X 



X 



Case No. 200 J. 0636 E 



34 

203428 



Wharf J- 1 Demolition and Reconstruction 



between Leavenworth and Jones Streets, and between Jones and Taylor Streets. No schools or California- 
licensed child-care centers are located within three blocks of the project site. The closest child-care 
facilities in the area are located more than four blocks away at 940 Filbert Street, 715 Chestnut Street, and 
555 Chestnut Street. 7 The proposed project would be a continuation of historical uses, would be 
compatible with existing uses in the area, and is not expected to discernibly increase ambient noise levels 
in the surrounding area. 

Demolition and Construction Activity Noise 

Building demolition and construction would temporarily increase noise in the site vicinity. The 
demolition period would last approximately one month. Construction of the fish processing facility and 
pier would take approximately 17 months. Noise from demolition and construction activities, especially 
impact tools and pile driving, could result in noise peaks that may disrupt nearby tourist-serving 
commercial uses, people at Aquatic Park, and nearby residences and hotels by interfering with normal 
speech and concentration (above exterior noise levels of 70 to 80 dB A). 8 The effect would be limited in 
time, depending upon the phase and duration of demolition and construction activities. 

Sections 2907 and 2908 of Article 29 of the San Francisco Police Code (Police Code) regulate 
construction equipment and construction work. Section 2907(b) states "it shall be unlawful for any 
person, including the City and County of San Francisco, to operate any powered construction equipment, 
regardless of age or date of acquisition, if the operation of such equipment emits noise at a level in excess 
of 80 dB A when measured at a distance of 100 feet from such equipment, or an equivalent sound level at 
some other convenient distance." Exemptions to this requirement include impact tools and equipment, 
pavement breakers, and jackhammers. The Police Code requires that such equipment be equipped with 
intake/exhaust mufflers and/or acoustically attenuating shields/shrouds recommended by the 
manufacturers and approved by the Director of Public Works to best accomplish maximum noise 
attenuation. 

In addition to the 80-dBA noise limit, Section 2908 prohibits any person, between the hours of 8:00 p.m. 
of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day to erect, construct, demolish, excavate for, alter, or repair 
any building or structure if the noise level created is in excess of the ambient noise level by 5 dB A at the 
nearest property line unless a special permit therefore has been applied for and granted by the Director of 
Public Works. 

Construction-related noise levels at 50 feet range from about 76 to 85 dBA for most types of construction 
equipment with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA for certain types of earthmoving and impact 
equipment. In addition, pile driving could generate noise levels of 90 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. 



State of California, Department.of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, Licensing Information System 
Directoiy Report, July 2004. 

Noise peaks generated by construction equipment could result in temporary disturbance (e.g. speech interference) to persons 
in nearby buildings if the noise level in the interior of the building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. A typical building can reduce noise 
levels by 20 to 25 dBA with the windows closed, although the actual noise attenuation may vary depending on building 
construction and design. Assuming a 20 to 25 dBA reduction with the windows closed, an exterior noise level of 70 to 80 
dBA at receptors would maintain an acceptable interior noise environment for normal conversation. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



35 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



It should be noted that such noise levels would be sporadic rather than continuous in nature because 
different types of construction equipment would be used throughout the demolition process. 

As the receptor moves away from the noise source, the rate of attenuation (lessening) is about six decibels 
(dBA) for every doubling of distance from a point source. 9 Average demolition-related noise levels 
would generally be maintained below 80 dBA throughout project implementation at distances of 
approximately 100 to 125 feet from the site. Distances of approximately 200 feet would generally 
maintain average noise levels below 70 dBA. In addition, the buildings separating the project site from 
many of the sensitive receptors in the area would also lower noise impacts from the project site. Because 
the Hyde Street Pier is adjacent to the property line, noise would be relatively high on portions of the pier. 
Because Aquatic Park, which is behind the pier, encompasses several city blocks, receptors would be 
expected to move to quieter locations in the park if the noise levels prove to be a nuisance. However, 
nearby employees and visitors at tourist-serving commercial uses to the south (along Jefferson Street and 
at the Cannery), and to the west and northwest (Hyde Street Pier) would be temporarily affected by 
demolition and construction noise. 

The Port, as part of the WLUP EIR, has implemented improvement measures to reduce noise produced by 
individual projects that must comply with the standards set forth in the WLUP EIR, including the 
proposed project. Noise improvement measures listed in the WLUP EIR (p. 649) that are applicable to 
this project include: 

• To reduce construction noise impacts, the Port should require construction contractors to limit 
noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of day and week if feasible (e.g., 7 
am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday). 

• Prior to noisy construction activity (i.e., pile driving), contractors should notify and meet with 
neighboring residents and business occupants to inform them of dates, hours, and duration of such 
activities so that these parties might plan their activities accordingly. 

• Procedures with the highest noise potential should be scheduled for the times when the ambient 
noise levels are highest when feasible (i.e., during peak commute hours). 

• For work in areas containing noise-sensitive uses, contractors should be required to employ the 
quietest among alternative construction equipment or to muffle/control noise from available 
equipment. 

As an additional improvement measure for this project, the Port would require the construction 
contractors to use a hydraulic or vibratory pile driver, if feasible, or predrill holes to the maximum depth 
feasible on the bases of soil conditions. Contractors would be required to use state-of-the-art noise 
shielding and muffling devices around any pile driver. The Port would also require that the contractor 
limit any installation of piles to result in the least disturbance to neighbors. 



9 Thus 91 dBA at 50 feet would attenuate to 85 dBA at 100 feel, 79 dBA at 200 feet, and 73 dBA at 400 feel while 85 dBA at 
50 feet would attenuate to 79 dBA at 100 feet, 73 dBA at 200 feet, and 67 dBA at 400 feet. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



36 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Operational Noise and Vibration 

Operational activities associated with the proposed project that would generate noise include vehicular 
circulation. An approximate doubling of traffic volumes in the area would be necessary to produce an 
increase in ambient noise levels noticeable to most people. The project would not cause a doubling in 
traffic volumes and therefore would not cause a noticeable increase in the ambient noise level in the 
project vicinity. 

Based on the above, there would be no significant noise impacts; therefore, noise will not be analyzed 
further in the EIR. 



6) Air Quality/Climate - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Violate any ambient air quality standard or 
contribute substantially to an existing or 

projected air quality violation? X X 

(b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations? X X 

(c) Permeate its vicinity with objectionable odors? X 

(d) Alter wind, moisture or temperature (including 
sun shading effects) so as to substantially affect 
public areas, or change the climate either in the 

community or region? X X 

Construction Air Quality Emissions 

Demolition, land clearing, grading, new construction, and other ground-disturbing activities for removal 
of the fish processing building, stabilization of the water's edge and construction of a level surface would 
temporarily affect local air quality for approximately one month, causing a temporary increase in 
particulate dust and other pollutants. If one or more of the improvements (F. Alioto, Cal Shell, Port) are 
implemented, construction could last for up to about 17 months. Dust emissions during demolition and 
grading would increase particulate concentrations near the project site. A portion of these emissions 
would likely result from equipment traveling over unpaved areas and such dust emissions would have the 
greatest nuisance potential. Fugitive dust is emitted during disturbance of soil and as a result of wind 
erosion over exposed earth. Dustfall can be expected at times on surfaces within 200 to 800 feet of the 
source. 

Under high winds exceeding 12 miles per hour, localized effects including human discomfort might occur 
downwind from blowing dust. Dust generated from demolition and construction is composed primarily 
of particularly large particles that settle out of the atmosphere more rapidly with increasing distance from 
the source and are easily filtered by human breathing passages. In general, dust generated by demolition 
and construction activity would result in more of a nuisance than a health hazard in the vicinity of the 
project site. About one-third of the dust generated by demolition and construction activities consists of 
smaller size particles in the range that can be inhaled by humans (i.e., particles 10 microns or smaller in 
diameter, known as PM10, although those particles are generally inert). Persons with respiratory diseases 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



37 

203428 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



immediately downwind of the site, as well as any unprotected electronics equipment, could be sensitive to 
this dust. 

Dust generation would be highly variable. The amount of dust generated on a given day would be 
dependent on types and amount of demolition and/or construction activity, and meteorological and soil 
conditions. The highest potential for dust generation occurs during the summer months when winds are 
highest on average and soil moisture is lowest. Demolition activities would generate the most dust and 
this would be only be for a short duration (no more than two months). 

Effects of demolition and construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of 
fine particulate matter. These impacts are considered to be significant on a temporary and localized basis. 
Mitigation Measure 1 on page 57 would reduce temporary adverse demolition air quality impacts. 
Because the project would include this mitigation measure, based on the above discussion, there would be 
no significant construction-related impacts on air quality and no further analysis is required in the EIR. 

Operational Air Quality Emissions 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (B AAQMD) has established thresholds for projects 
requiring its review for potential air quality impacts. These thresholds are based on the minimum size 
projects, which the district considers capable of producing air quality problems due to vehicular 
emissions. The project would not exceed this minimum standard. Therefore, no significant air quality 
impacts resulting from operation of the proposed project would be generated, and no further analysis is 
required in the EIR. 

Odors 

Odors from fish-processing activities are part of the existing conditions in Fish Alley. The project would 
not result in a perceptible increase or change in odors on the project site or in the vicinity of the project. 
Therefore, no further analysis on odor impacts is required in the EIR. 

Shadow 

Although the proposed building would be twice as tall as the existing building on the site, the proposed 
building would not generate new shadows on any sun-sensitive resources in the area, such as publicly 
accessible open spaces. Shadows from the proposed project would fall mostly on the Fisherman's Wharf 
Lagoon, although, since only a portion of the building would be reconstructed, the net change in shadows 
on the harbor would not be substantial Therefore, no further shadow analysis in the EIR is required. 

Wind 

Because the proposed building and all surrounding building are of a low-rise nature (40 feet or less), the 
project would not cause any adverse wind effects. Therefore, the project could not result in any 
significant wind impacts and no further analysis is required in the EIR. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



38 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



7) Utilities/Public Services - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 



(a) Breach published national, state or local 
standards relating to solid waste or litter 

control? X 

(b) Extend a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve 

new development? X 

(c) Substantially increase demand for schools, 

recreation or other public facilities? X 

(d) Require major expansion of power, water, or 
communications facilities? X 



Although service to the site has been discontinued, existing utilities are in place that served the prior fish 
processing use. The proposed project would not substantially increase the existing demand for utilities 
and/or public services in the area. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of 
waste disposal services, and would not substantially increase water and energy consumption. Hence, 
utilities and public services would not be adversely affected by the project and will not be further 
analyzed in the EIR. 



8) Biology - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Substantially affect a rare or endangered species 

of animal or plant or the habitat of the species? X X 

(b) Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife 
or plants, or interfere substantially with the 
movement of any resident or migratory fish or 

wildlife species? X X 

(c) Require removal of substantial numbers of 

mature, scenic trees? X X 

The project site and a majority of the Fisherman's Wharf area are developed and covered with structures 
and other impermeable surfaces. Sea gulls are common to the area. Terrestrial birds in the area are 
limited to species adapted to urbanization and human presence such as English sparrows, starlings, and 
Brewer's blackbirds. The urbanized character and lack of suitable cover and food sources limit 
occurrences of terrestrial mammals to those species adapted to urban environments. These include 
Norway rats, house mice, meadow mice, and gophers, in addition to domestic and feral cats and dogs; 
none of these are rare or endangered species. 

Because the project site is in a developed urban area and is almost completely covered by structures and 
impermeable surfaces, the proposed project would not affect any rare plants or possible animal habitats. 
No mature trees are located on the project site. No rare, threatened, or endangered species would be 
affected by the project. 

The project would result in the removal of timber piles and the placement of new rip-rap rock fill on the 
eastern portion of the project site at the toe of the earth embankment that forms the southern edge of the 



Case No. 200 J. 0636 E 



39 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon and that now supports a portion of the fish processing building and 
Wharf J-10. This work would result in the loss of some marine habitat for some species and a gain in 
potential habitat for others. Habitat loss would include the removed substrate that would be buried by fill, 
while new habitat would be created for settlement of hard-bottom species that would attach to new rock 
fill (rip rap). The proposed removal of submerged pile portions of the Wharf J-10 would result in the loss 
of some organisms, but these organisms are common in adjacent areas and would likely recolonize the 
area following completion of the project. The project would result in a minor loss of benthic habitat, 
which would not be considered significant. 

Pile removal and the placement of new rip-rap rock fill would result in short-term increases in turbidity 
that could reduce light availability and thus photosynthetic activity of phytoplankton. 

Some avoidance of the project area by marine mammals would be likely during project construction. 
However, the short-term incremental increase in noise level is not expected to affect seals and sea lions or 
any known haul out spots in the project area. 

As described further in Section 10, Water, page 44, the project would be subject to the provisions of the 
San Francisco Bay RWQCB's "Conditional Approval of Low Threat to Water Quality Activities, 
Northern Embarcadero Area" issued to the Port to protect water quality. Provisions of the Conditional 
Approval would include measures that also would minimize impacts on marine life, including 
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of construction 
materials and incidental particulates from entering the Bay during construction; a prohibition on discharge 
of asphalt, creosote pile shavings, concrete, silt, clay, sand, sawdust, chemicals and treated materials, or 
other similar materials to the Bay; proper disposal of construction debris; and appropriate maintenance of 
construction equipment to avoid accidental spills to the Bay. It is possible that debris from the demolition 
of the wharf could fall into the Bay, but as discussed under the water quality section (below), provisions 
would be required by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB as a condition prior to the beginning of demolition 
or construction. These measures would include positioning a floating debris barrier and/or absorbent 
boom along-side areas where work is occurring and the immediate retrieval of any debris that falls into 
the Bay (see page 45). 

Finally, consistent with Mitigation Measures H-l and H-2 of the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR, the Port 
would limit construction periods to avoid conflicts with Pacific herring spawning season and would 
require a bat survey prior to demolition and construction (refer to Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 on pages 
57 and 60). 

Biology Improvement Measures 

Biological Resources Improvement Measure 2 from the WLUP EIR (p. 654) would apply to the proposed 
project and states that, "pier repair/replacement projects should be planned so as to leave old pilings in 
place whenever possible to avoid impacts to existing substrate. New pilings should be constructed of pre- 
stressed concrete, plastic, or steel that has not been pre-treated with anti-biofouling material, or by 
wooden pilings treated with materials approved by the RWQCB that would not substantially affect 
biological resources." This measure would, overtime, result in additional increases in fill in the Bay, but 
is recommended by the Corps of Engineers. Other improvement measures from the WLUP EIR that 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



40 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



apply to Biological Resources, but that do not apply to this project, include measures relating to dredging, 
floating dock space for sea lions, and wetlands. As an additional improvement measure, the Port 
proposes to require the demolition contractor to wrap piles prior to removal to reduce the potential for 
release of particles into the Bay. 

As shown in the discussion, there would be no significant impacts on biological resources, therefore, 
biology will not be further analyzed in the EfR. 



9) Geology/Topography - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Expose people or structures to major geologic 
hazards (slides, subsidence, erosion and 

liquefaction)? X X 

(b) Change substantially the topography or any 

unique geologic or physical features of the site? X 

This section discusses the project-specific geologic and topographic impacts related to demolition of the 
site structures and construction of a new wharf and fish processing facility. A more programmatic 
evaluation of potential geologic and topographic impacts in the waterfront area is presented in the 1997 
Waterfront Land Use Plan Final EIR (FEIR). Mitigation measures from the FEIR that apply to the 
proposed project are identified as Mitigation Measures 4 through 13 in Section III.D, pages 56 through 61 
of this Initial Study. No new mitigation measures were identified as a result of this project specific 
review. 

San Francisco General Plan Community Safety Element 

The San Francisco General Plan Community Safety Element contains maps that show areas of the city 
subject to geologic hazards. The project site is located in an area identified to be subject to ground 
shaking from an earthquake along the peninsula segment of the San Andreas and northern Hayward faults 
(Maps 2 and 3 of the Community Safety Element), and the project is in an area of liquefaction potential 
(Map 4). The project is also located within a potential tsunami run-up area (Map 6). The site is not in a 
potential landslide hazard area (Map 5), nor is it subject to potential inundation due to reservoir failure 
(Map 7). 

Site Geology and Topography 

The project site is flat and is located within the Fisherman's Wharf Subarea of the San Francisco 
Waterfront. Geologic materials along the waterfront of this area generally consist of about 15 to 20 feet of 
artificial fill placed over Quaternary Bay Mud, which is typically underlain by Bay Side Sand and Older 
Bay Mud (City of San Francisco, 1997). Franciscan Bedrock is encountered at depths from 50 to over 100 
feet. Limited excavation would be required for construction of the proposed project (approximately one 
foot); therefore the proposed project would not substantially alter the topography of the project site and 
will not be analyzed further in the EfR. . 



Case No. 200I.0636E 



41 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Seismicity 

The San Francisco Bay Area is a region of high seismic activity because of faulting within the San 
Andreas system. The principal faults of this system include the San Gregorio, San Andreas, Hayward- 
Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, Concord-Green Valley, and Greenville Faults plus the Mt. Diablo Thrust 
(USGS, 2003). The USGS estimates that there is a 62 percent probability of at least one magnitude 6.7 or 
greater earthquake occurring within the San Francisco Bay Area before 2032. While a magnitude 6.7 or 
greater earthquake would most likely occur on one of the seven principal faults, it could also occur on a 
different, known fault or a previously unidentified fault. 

The nearest active faults are the San Andreas Fault, located 7 miles southwest of the site; the Hayward 
Fault, located 12 miles northeast; the San Gregorio Fault, located 10 miles southwest; and the Calaveras 
Fault, located 22 miles northeast. The San Andreas and Hay ward-Rodgers Creek Faults have the highest 
probability of generating a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake before 2032. 

Groundshaking and Secondary Effects 

The project site would be expected to be subject to strong to violent groundshaking, corresponding to a 
Modified Mercalli Scale shaking intensity of VII to IX, 10 from an earthquake along one of the principal 
regional faults (Maps 2 and 3 of the Community Safety Element; ABAG, 2003). In addition, the project 
site is located in an area of liquefaction potential, 11 a secondary effect of groundshaking (California 
Geological Survey, 2001). 

A range of effects due to ground shaking could occur in the event of an earthquake on one of the regional 
faults including structural damage resulting directly from the groundshaking, or from secondary effects 
including differential settlement, lateral spreading, and liquefaction. Such damage could place people at 
risk of injury and seismic ground waves, and differential settlement can fracture or sever underground 
utility conduits. These effects can be amplified in partially consolidated sediments, including artificial fill 
and loose sand deposits, such as those expected at the project site. Structures constructed on these 
materials are more susceptible to structural damage than those on more competent materials like bedrock 
or consolidated sediments. 

Although some structural damage due to seismic shaking and liquefaction is typically unavoidable during 
an earthquake, building codes and construction ordinances have been established to protect against 
building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. In accordance with these requirements, prior to 
construction, a site-specific geotechnical investigation would be conducted and site-specific 
recommendations would be made for the construction of the building and wharf to protect against seismic 
hazards. The recommendations and final building plans would be subject to the review and approval by 
the Port's Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Port building permit. 



The Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale is commonly used to measure, and to describe in lay terms, earthquake effects 
due to ground shaking. The MM values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total). 
Intensities ranging from IV to X could cause moderate to significant structural damage. 
Liquefaction is the failure of saturated earth materials when subjected to shaking. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



42 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



In reviewing building plans, the Port Engineering Division refers to a variety of information sources to 
determine existing hazards and assess design and construction requirements. Sources reviewed include 
maps of Special Geologic Study Areas in San Francisco as well as the Engineering Division's working 
knowledge of areas of special geologic concern. For any development proposal in an area of liquefaction 
potential, the Port Engineering Division would, in its review of the building permit application, require 
preparation of a geotechnical report pursuant to the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Therefore, 
potential damage to structures from geotechnical hazards on a project site would be mitigated through the 
Port's requirement for a geotechnical report, review of the building permit application pursuant to Port 
implementation of the Building Code, and implementation of the resultant recommendations. 

Design and construction of the proposed facilities in accordance with applicable requirements of the 
San Francisco Building Code would ensure that the risk from earthquake-induced ground shaking and 
liquefaction is acceptable within the context of seismic risk throughout the Bay Area. This would be an 
improvement over existing conditions since existing structures were not built to today's seismic standards 
and the existing building on the project site has experienced substantial deterioration. Therefore, the 
project would not result in significant effects with regard to earthquake-induced ground shaking and 
earthquake-induced ground-shaking will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 

Surface Rupture 

The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone 12 as defined by the California 
Geological Survey, and no active or potentially active faults exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the 
site. 13 Because of this, the potential for surface fault rupture is low and the impact is considered less than 
significant. Therefore, surface fault rupture will not be analyzed further in the EIR. 

Tsunamis 

The project site is located in an area of potential inundation should a 20-foot tsunami 14 reach the 
San Francisco coast (Map 6 of the Community Safety Element). Along Fisherman's Wharf, the height of 
an expected tsunami, originating from outside the Golden Gate, with a 100-year return period (i.e., 
expected to occur once every 100 years, on average) is 6.2 feet (City of San Francisco, 1997). Although 
seiches and tsunamis can occur and cause tidal surges in San Francisco Bay, the Bay greatly attenuates 
tsunamis that might reach the Golden Gate area and these events are extremely rare. 

With demolition of the structurally inadequate building and wharf at Wharf J- 10 and construction of a 
new wharf and building in conformance with current building requirements, construction of the proposed 
project would be an improvement over existing conditions with respect to geologic and seismic concerns. 



Alquist-Pnolo Zones designate areas most likely to experience fault rupture, although surface fault rupture is not necessarily 
restricted those specifically zoned areas. 

An active fault is defined by the .State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time 
(approximately the last 10,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface 
displacement during die Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless difect geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of 
the Holocene or longer. This definition does not, of course, mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are 
necessarily inactive. Sufficiently active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement 
occurred on one or more of its segments or branches (Hart, 1997). 

A tsunami is a very large ocean wave that is caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. 



Case No. 200 1. 0636 E 



43 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



In light of the above, the project would not result in a significant effect related to geology and topography, 
and geologic and seismic concerns will not be analyzed further in the EIR. . 

As shown in the above discussion, there would be no significant impacts on geology and topography; 
therefore, geology and topography will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 



10) Water - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Substantially degrade water quality, or 

contaminate a public water supply? X 

(b) Substantially degrade or deplete ground-water 
resources, or interfere substantially with 

groundwater recharge? X X 

(c) Cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? X X 



Water Features, Drainage, and Combined Sewer System 

The project site is located directly adjacent to Fisherman's Wharf Lagoon, which is part of San Francisco 
Bay. This area is located in the Northshore Drainage Basin of the City's drainage system, and natural 
drainage in this area flows to the Bay. However, because the City is almost entirely served by a 
combined sewage system that collects and transports both sanitary sewage and storm water runoff in the 
same set of pipes, nearly all of the City's storm water, including storm water from the on-land portions of 
the project site, drains to the combined sewer system. Therefore, drainage at the project site is largely 
controlled through the City's combined sewer system. 

During dry weather, wastewater flows in the combined sewer system consist mainly of municipal 
(sanitary) and industrial sewage. Sewage from the east side of the City, including the project site, is 
transported to and treated at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant, located in the Bay view district, 
and treated wastewater is discharged to the Bay near Pier 80. During wet weather, the volume of 
wastewater in the City's sewer system greatly increases due to the addition of rainfall and storm water 
runoff which mixes with the municipal and industrial sewage. The increased wet weather flow in excess 
of the treatment capacity of the Southeast Plant is conveyed to and treated at the North Point Wet Weather 
Facility, located at Bay and Kearny Streets, or can be detained in storage and transport boxes for later 
treatment. During wet weather, treated wastewater from the North Point Wet Weather Facility is 
discharged to the Bay near Piers 33 and 35. 

When rainfall intensity results in storm water flows that exceed the total capacity of the Southeast Plant, 
North Point Facility, and the storage and transport structures, the excess flows are discharged to the Bay, 
through 29 combined sewer overflow (CSO) structures located along the City's waterfront. Discharges 
from the CSO structures receive the equivalent of primary treatment, 15 referred to as "flow-through" 



Primary treatment refers to physical treatment processes, such as screening and sedimentation, which remove large and heavy 
solids. Higher levels of wastewater treatment are secondary treatment, which involves oxidation of organic matter in 
wastewater using biological processes, and tertiary treatment, which involves chemical treatment to remove specific 
contaminants. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 



44 

203428 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



treatment. The closest CSO structures to the project site are located at Laguna Street and Beach Street, 
about 3,800 and 3,000 feet, respectively, from Wharf J-10. 

All discharges from the combined sewer system to the Bay, including those from the Southeast Plant, 
North Point Facility, and the CSO structures, are operated in compliance with a National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control 
Board (SFRWQCB) (SFRWQCB, 2002). 

Construction Activities 

Project implementation would involve the following construction activities that have a potential to affect 
water quality: removal of 173 creosote-treated timber piles and replacement of between 45 and 60 new 
piles; placement of new rip-rap rock fill along the length of the seawall at the toe of the earth 
embankment that supports the existing fish processing building and Wharf J-10; construction of an 
asphalt lip to prevent untreated drainage into the Bay; and demolition of existing structures and 
construction of new structures over and adjacent to the Bay. Because the proposed project would involve 
coverage of less water than existing conditions, and would include pier demolition and construction as 
well as piling removal and replacement, the project would be subject to the requirements of the 
"Conditional Approval of Low Threat to Water Quality Activities, Northern Embarcadero Area" 
(Conditional Approval) issued by the SFRWQCB to the Port of San Francisco (SFRWQCB, March 14, 
2003). 

Provisions of the Conditional Approval that would be implemented for the protection of Bay water 
quality during construction include the following measures: 

• The project must minimize fill in the Bay, and be conducted in compliance with a Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission permit. 

• Adequate best management practices (BMPs) shall be performed to minimize the discharge of 
construction materials and any incidental falling particulates from the pier deck, temporary access 
areas, equipment staging areas and other construction areas. 

• The discharge, or creation of a potential for discharge, of any material including asphalt, creosote 
pile shavings, concrete, silt, clay, sand, sawdust, or other materials to the Bay is prohibited. 

• The project proponent will work to minimize the potential for debris, chemicals or treated 
materials to contact Bay waters. Any debris falling into the Bay will immediately be retrieved. A 
floating debris barrier and/or absorbent boom shall be positioned beneath and along-side areas 
where work is occurring as appropriate. The Port must first obtain Board staff approval for any 
exceptions to the use of floating debris barrier and/or absorbent booms. 

» All material and debris generated as a result of this project shall be removed from the site and 
properly disposed of to an appropriate upland recycling or disposal site. 

• Construction equipment shall be maintained and fueled in areas where accidental spills shall not 
impact waters of the State. 



Case No. 200 1. 0636 E 



45 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



• Spill containment and cleanup equipment shall be maintained on-site throughout the duration of 
the project. 

In addition to these measures, the Port would ensure that construction activities are scheduled to avoid 
conflicts with special activities of the nearby swimming clubs, as discussed in Mitigation Measure 14 on 
page 65. 

In the Conditional Approval, the SFRWQCB finds that through compliance with the above provisions, 
regulated "low threat to water quality activities" would not cause significant permanent impact to waters 
of the State; that temporary impacts to water quality would be minimal; and that if BMPs are 
implemented during and after construction, no mitigation other than implementation of the applicable 
conditions is required. In addition, should any new information about project activities conducted under 
the Conditional Approval indicate a water quality problem, the SFRWQCB could issue waste discharge 
requirements specifying more stringent provisions for the protection of water quality. Therefore, water 
quality impacts related to construction over and adjacent to the Bay are less than significant with 
compliance with the Conditional Approval and additional measures proposed by the project sponsor. 

As part of the renovations, 173 existing creosote -treated timber piles would be replaced with new 
concrete pilings. Creosote is an effective wood preservative in a marine environment but also may contain 
organic compounds toxic to marine organisms. Although removal of creosote pilings may release some 
organic substances, the effect would be temporary and if the timber piles are replaced with concrete or 
steel piles, the result would be a long-term improvement in water quality. 

Post-Construction Activities 

The proposed project area is entirely paved or covered with buildings, resulting in 100 percent impervious 
surfaces. Currently, almost all storm water runoff from the project site flows to the City's combined sewer 
system. Storm water run-off from the J-10 shed roof, and a small area of pavement approximately 400 sf 
near the intersection of Fish Alley and Leavenworth, may flow directly to the Bay. 

Demolition of the existing buildings and wharf and construction of the replacement facilities would result 
in a net reduction of approximately 9,521 sf of impervious surfaces in the area where the wharf would not 
be reconstructed. The overall reduction in impervious surfaces would be about 39 percent of the total 
project area, which would increase the amount of rainfall falling directly on the Bay, and would result in a 
net reduction in storm water runoff (see Mitigation Measures 15 and 16 on page 64). A reduction of 
impervious surfaces at the site and the resulting decrease in the volume of runoff into the combined sewer 
system would result in an improvement in water quality over existing conditions. 

The proposed F. Alioto building would result in a small increase in sanitary sewage and industrial 
wastewater flows to the City's combined sewer system, compared to existing conditions. This may 
trigger the need for a pump station currently located at the intersection of Jefferson and Leavenworth 
Streets to be upgraded to meet the future water quality and utility standards. The necessity of the pump 
station upgrade cannot be determined at this time; however, if the F. Alioto building is constructed, the 
conditions at the pump station would be monitored and decisions regarding an upgrade would be decided 
based on the future condition information. Upgrade of the pump station would have no adverse effects of 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



46 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



its own. The discharge of that portion of water used for industrial purposes would be subject to the 
requirements of Article 4. 1 of the San Francisco Public Works Code, which regulates the quantity and 
quality of industrial discharges to the combined sewer system. 

In accordance with this article, the user of the new fish processing facility proposed by F. Alioto would be 
required to obtain a Class I discharge permit from the City and County of San Francisco to discharge the 
industrial wastewater to the combined sewer system. The discharge would be required to meet the 
permit's specified discharge limitations. In addition, the discharge of other materials that could obstruct 
or damage the sewer system; cause a nuisance; interfere with the operation, maintenance, or repair of the 
sewer system; or would directly or indirectly cause a violation of the City's federal or State sewage 
discharge permit would be prohibited. 

In addition to requiring compliance with discharge limitations, the Class I permit would specify 
requirements for pretreatment of wastewater discharged to the sewer system, restrictions on peak flow 
discharges, restrictions on the hours of discharge, required payment of additional charges to defray the 
cost to the City created by the wastewater discharge, required sampling and monitoring prior to and 
during discharge, reporting requirements, requirements for investigations or studies to determine methods 
of reducing toxic constituents in the discharges, and other conditions and terms necessary to achieve the 
objectives of Article 4.1. The permit would be issued for a fixed time period, not to exceed five years. 
Reports, including a description of any violations, remedial measures taken, any process changes, are 
required to be submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. 

The proposed F. Alioto fish processing facility is estimated to result in a water demand of approximately 
2,600 gallons per day, which is assumed to be primarily for industrial usage with an incidental increase in 
sanitary sewage associated with 30 employees. The total volume of sanitary sewage and wastewater 
produced by the fish processing facility would not result in a measurable increase in flows to the City's 
combined sewer system or associated discharges to the Bay. 

Therefore, with compliance with the City's industrial discharge permit and due to the very small increase 
in discharges to the City' s sewer system, the proposed project would have no substantial impact on the 
City's combined sewer system, would not result in long term water quality impacts, and thus would be 
considered less than significant and will not be analyzed further in the EER. 

Storm Water Quality Impacts Related to Operation 

The Industrial Activities Storm Water General Permit (Industrial General Permit) adopted by the State 
Water Resources Control Board in 1997 (SWRCB, 1997) applies to storm water discharges from 
regulated industrial facilities that drain directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate 
storm sewers. Storm water discharges from the Port of San Francisco's maintenance facility and the 
Port's industrial tenants are required to comply with this permit. However, storm water discharges at the 
Wharf 1-10 fish processing facility would not be subject to the Industrial General Permit because as stated 
above, storm water from the proposed new building would be captured and discharged to the City's 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



47 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



combined sewer system, not discharged directly to the Bay or the Port's separate storm sewer system. 16 
Storm water collected in the combined sewer system receives the equivalent of primary treatment, at a 
minimum, prior to discharge to the Bay in accordance with the City's NPDES permit. Therefore, long- 
term operational impacts associated with storm water runoff would be less than significant and will not be 
further analyzed in the EIR. 

Waterfront Land Use Plan FEIR Water Quality Improvement Measures 

The project site is subject to the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan. Accordingly, Table 1 indicates the 
disposition of water quality-related mitigation measures that were identified in the 1997 Waterfront Land 
Use Plan Final EIR (FEIR) and approved by the Port Commission with adoption of the Waterfront Plan in 
June 1997. No significant hydrology or water quality impacts (beyond the unavoidable significant 
impacts related to regional dredge disposal, which does not apply to the Wharf J- 10 project, were 
identified in the FEIR and no mitigation measures were identified. However, the FEIR did specify 
improvement measures that could reduce hydrology or water quality impacts that may be of concern. The 
FEIR improvement measures were reviewed in relation to the proposed project and all measures have 
either been incorporated into the proposed project or would not apply to the proposed project as 
summarized in Table 1 on page 49. In addition to the WLUP improvement measures, the Port, as an 
additional improvement measure, would require the contractor to wrap cloths around the piles prior to 
removal thereby reducing the potential for release of particles into the Bay. 

As shown in this discussion, there would be no significant impact on water; therefore, water will not be 
further analyzed in the EIR. 



11) Energy/Natural Resources - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Encourage activities which result in the use of 
large amounts of fuel, water, or energy, or use 

these in a wasteful manner? X X 

(b) Have a substantial effect on the potential use, 

extraction, or depletion of a natural resource? X 

Project construction would require consumption of energy in an amount that would be typical for the 
demolition and construction of a project of this nature. Upon project implementation, energy 
consumption would be similar to the amount previously consumed at the site. The proposed project 
would consume energy in the form of electricity, but would not generate a substantial increase in demand 
upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. 



Nearly all of San Francisco, including the project site, is served by a combined sewer system that captures both municipal 
sewage and stormwater runoff in the same set of pipes. While not applicable to the proposed project, there are a few isolated 
areas within the Port of San Francisco's jurisdiction that have a separate stormwater collection system and are regulaiod 
separately from the City's combined sewer system. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



48 

20.VI2I! 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



TABLE 1 

SUMMARY OF WATERFRONT LAND USE PLAN FEIR WATER QUALITY 
IMPROVEMENT MEASURES AND APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT 



Improvement 
Measure No. 



Summary of Measure 



Applicability to Proposed Project 



Require connection to the combined sewer 
system or treatment of storm water 
discharges not served by the City's 
combined sewer system. 



Encourage participation of industrial 
facilities in the Port's Group Monitoring 
Program 

Locate projects with wastewater disposal 
needs where appropriate sewer connections 
and laterals are available and meet current 
City building codes. 

Require water quality monitoring for 
projects that include construction or 
demolition of facilities on or adjacent to the 
Bay. 



Use erosion control measures during earth 
moving activities to minimize wind-borne 
or water-borne sedimentation to surface 
waters. 



Incorporated as part of the proposed project, 
since it includes discharge of all wastewater 
and untreated stormwater to the City' s 
combined sewer system. Stormwater 
discharge to the Bay would be treated to 
meet applicable water quality regulations. 

Not applicable because the proposed project 
includes discharge of storm water to the 
City's combined sewer system. 

Incorporated as part of the proposed project. 
The Port has confirmed that the proposed 
project is located in an area where there are 
appropriate sewer connections. 

Subsequent to publication of the FEER, the 
RWQCB has classified the demolition and 
construction activities that would be 
conducted as part of the proposed project as 
"low threat to water quality activities" and 
issued its Conditional Approval specifying 
measures to be taken for the protection of 
water quality. These conditions supercede 
the requirement for water quality 
monitoring and have been incorporated into 
the project. 

Subsequent to publication of the FEIR, the 
RWQCB has classified the demolition and 
construction activities that would be 
conducted as part of the proposed project as 
"low threat to water quality activities" and 
issued its Conditional Approval specifying 
measures to be taken for the protection of 
water quality. These conditions incorporate 
erosion control measures. 



The Port should work with the City and 
other agencies to obtain and assure funding 
for annual updating of the San Francisco Oil in the Bay. 
Spill Prevention and Response Plan. 



Does not apply because the project would 
not contribute to the potential for oil spills 



§ 



Case No. 200J.0636E 



49 

203428 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Reconstruction 



Energy Improvement Measures 

Energy improvement measures listed in the WLUP EIR (p.663-665) that are applicable to this project 
include: 

• Operational energy consumption could be reduced by a variety of design measures. Many of 
these measures have been documented by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Bureau 
of Energy Conservation for land use projects. Possible energy-efficient design measures include: 

- Energy -efficient equipment and appliances. Use of energy-efficient heating and cooling 
equipment and electric appliances could reduce operational energy consumption. The use of 
natural gas-fired space and water heating equipment, and energy-efficient electric appliances 
should be encouraged. 

- Reduced lighting. Appropriate reductions in building lighting can conserve energy consumed 
by the lighting equipment itself, and additional air conditioning required to remove waste 
heat generated by the lights, while maintaining adequate light levels. Reduced-lighting 
strategies include targeting light levels to specific tasks, use of more efficient lighting 
equipment, automatic lighting controls, and day lighting. 

- Natural cooling. Cooling loads could be reduced by taking advantage of San Francisco's 
year-round cool climate. Non-residential buildings could use outside-air economizers (which 
use cool outside air rather than energy consuming refrigeration equipment for air 
conditioning). 

- Optimized glazing. Optimized glazing is the most energy-efficient combination of glass 
characteristics in a building. Factors that affect energy consumption include the amount 
(percentage) of glass, the daylight penetration, and the shading coefficient. Optimized 
glazing would be most appropriate for non-residential buildings. 

• Recycling of materials and conservation of water that would have energy benefits in addition to 
decreasing the consumption of other natural resources. 

Other energy improvement measures listed in the WLUP EIR are not applicable to this project 

As shown in the discussion, there would be no significant impacts on energy and natural resources, 
therefore, energy and natural resources will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



50 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



12) Hazards - Could the project: 



Yes No Discussed 



(a) Create a potential public health hazard or 
involve the use, production or disposal of 
materials which pose a hazard to people or 
animal or plant populations in the area 

affected? X X 

(b) Interfere with emergency response plans or 

emergency evacuation plans? X X 

(c) Create a potentially substantial fire hazard? X 

Soil and Groundwater Quality 

The proposed project site is located in an area that was originally part of the shallow margins of the Bay. 
Beginning in the 1850s, the area was gradually filled. The fill materials historically used in San Francisco 
commonly include materials excavated from nearby hills as well as human-made debris that could include 
contaminants. In addition, rubble from destroyed buildings, including hazardous materials that were used 
in the buildings, was commonly incorporated into the fill and built upon during reconstruction after the 
1906 Fire and Earthquake. The post-earthquake fill commonly contains lead, polynuclear aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PNAs), heavy metals, oil and grease and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

Based on the Hazards analyses conducted for the Waterfront Land Use Plan Final EIR (City of 
San Francisco, 1997) and adjacent Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Final EIR (City of San Francisco, 1996), 
the proposed project site is also located in an area with historic industrial land uses that involved the use 
of hazardous materials as well as many environmental cases where soil and/or groundwater contamination 
have been identified. Within the immediate vicinity of the project site, there have historically been 
numerous underground and aboveground petroleum storage tank systems, resulting in petroleum in soil 
and groundwater in the area and beneath the project site. Notably, the former Exxon/Mobil Oil Bulk 
Terminal was located adjacent to the project site, to the south, at 440 Jefferson Street, and soil and 
groundwater at the former terminal are known to contain petroleum; free product 17 was observed on the 
groundwater in some of the site monitoring wells. In 1990, several hundred gallons of petroleum were 
released to unpaved soil within the bermed tank yard at the Exxon/Mobil terminal. Contaminated soil 
within the bermed area was removed from the ground surface to the surface of the groundwater table; 
however, contamination remained in the groundwater and in soil outside the excavated area. 

Soil and groundwater quality within the project site have been evaluated as part of two previous 
investigations to identify the extent of petroleum in the soil or groundwater originating from the former 
Mobil Oil site. Since 1990, under the regulatory oversight of the Department of Public Health or 
RWQCB, Exxon/Mobil has been required to investigate and remediate subsurface petroleum 
contamination, including installation of monitoring and extraction wells, removal of contaminated soil, 
removal of free product from groundwater wells, and monitoring and reporting petroleum concentrations 
in groundwater. Numerous groundwater monitoring wells, including one located on the project site, have 
been monitored quarterly since 1992. Groundwater from one well located within the project site contains 



Free product is petroleum fuel, such as gasoline or diesel, that is not dissolved in the groundwater but floats on the 
groundwater surface or sinks through the groundwater. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



51 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd), and 
benzene (at concentrations ranging from undetectable (<0.30 micrograms per liter) to 35 micrograms per 
liter). 

In compliance with a RWQCB request for technical report, Exxon/Mobil proposed additional 
investigation to characterize the extent of contamination and collect data needed to evaluate the feasibility 
of various remedial actions. Exxon/Mobile currently is analyzing the feasibility of various approaches to 
remediate soil and groundwater contamination in compliance with the RWQCB request. The RWQCB 
has approved a compliance schedule under which Exxon/Mobil will submit an "Environmental Risk 
Assessment" and a "Feasibility Study" by July 30, 2004, and a "Remedial Action Plan" detailing how 
Exxon/Mobil will implement the preferred remedial alternative by October 29, 2004. The RWQCB is 
responsible for ensuring that Exxon/Mobil's feasibility study adequately evaluates all appropriate 
remediation methods and sets clean-up goals that protect human health and the environment. The 
RWQCB is additionally responsible for ensuring that Exxon/Mobil executes its Remedial Action Plan in 
a timely and effective manner, without adverse environmental impact, and achieves applicable cleanup 
goals. While the proposed Wharf J-10 demolition might influence the logistics of executing remediation, 
it does not substantively impact the feasibility study or remedial action planning. 

Because petroleum contamination beneath the project site is present at the groundwater table, 
approximately five to seven feet below ground surface, and the proposed demolition would not disturb 
soil below approximately two feet below ground surface (although the precise depth for excavation for 
foundation requirements has not yet been determined), demolition is not anticipated to pose a risk of 
impact or exposure to subsurface contamination. The monitoring well located within the project site 
would be properly abandoned, in accordance with state well construction standards, and would be 
replaced if required by the RWQCB. If subsequent construction requires excavation to the water table 
where contaminated soil and groundwater are anticipated (approximately five feet below grade in the area 
of excavation), the Port would notify the City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health 
and the RWQCB. In addition, construction specifications would be required to address soil and 
groundwater management and worker health and safety precautions appropriate to site conditions, as 
required by the RWQCB. 

If the excavation were to exceed 50 cubic yards of soil, the project would have to comply with the 
requirements of Article 22A of the San Francisco Health Code (also known as the "Maher Ordinance"), 
regulating site investigation and hazardous waste handling requirements. However, the proposed 
demolition is not expected to be subject to the requirements of the Maher Ordinance because that work 
would involve less than 50 cubic yards of soil. Therefore, the requirements to prepare a site history, 
conduct a soils investigation, and develop a site mitigation plan would not apply. Since excavation for the 
proposed project would be limited to a depth of approximately two feet, groundwater would not be 
expected to be encountered during construction. The soil excavation requirements for the proposed 
construction of the F. Alioto facility are currently unknown. If that excavation exceeds 50 cubic yards, 
the requirements of Article 22 would apply, and would have to be completed prior to the start of that 
work. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



52 

203428 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Reconstruct u Wl 



Based on known historic land uses and identified cases of soil and groundwater contamination in the 
vicinity of the proposed project, it is possible that the limited soil that would be excavated for the 
demolition could contain hazardous materials that could pose health and safety risks to the construction 
workers and public. It is also possible that the excavated soil could require special disposal requirements. 
In the event that less than 50 cubic yards of soil would be excavated, and Article 22A would not apply, 
Mitigation Measure 17, requiring preparation of a site health and safety plan, and Mitigation Measure 18, 
requiring stockpiling, analysis, and proper disposal of all excavated soil, would be implemented to reduce 
these potential impacts to less than significant. (These measures are included on pg. 64 and 65 of this 
Initial Study.) Potential exposure to hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater after construction of 
the proposed project would not be of concern because the project would include 100 percent impervious 
surfaces, and future site occupants and visitors would not contact the soil or groundwater. 

In the event that construction of the proposed wharf and fish processing facility does require excavation 
of greater than 50 cubic yards of soil, Article 22A would apply to the proposed project. The regulations 
would take effect at the time of the building permit application and impose the following major 
requirements: 

• Preparation of a site history report to describe past site uses and identify whether the site is listed 
as a hazardous waste site pursuant to state or federal regulations; 

• Implementation of a soil investigation to evaluate the potential presence of hazardous wastes in 
the soil; 

• Preparation of a soil analysis report that evaluates the results of chemical analysis of the soil 
samples; 

• Preparation of a site mitigation report, if contamination is identified, assessing potential 
environmental and health and safety risks and recommending measures to mitigate the risks; 

• Preparation of a certification report stating that either (1) no hazardous wastes present in the soil 
present an unacceptable risk and that no mitigation measures are required; or (2) all mitigation 
measures recommended in the site mitigation report have been completed and that completion of 
the mitigation measures has been verified through follow-up soil sampling and analysis, if 
required. 

The site history report and the soil analysis report must be prepared by knowledgeable, certified 
professionals and provide information on historic and current hazardous waste contamination at the 
property to be developed. The site history report would be submitted to the San Francisco Department of 
Public Health. The soil analysis report would be submitted to the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. If the soil 
sampling and analysis report, or the site history report, indicate that the site proposed for development is 
listed on the National Priorities List or the list of California Hazardous Substances Account Act release 
sites, the applicant must certify that any site mitigation required by a federal or state agency has been 
completed. 



Case No. 200J.0636E 



53 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Article 22 A protects the health and safety of the City's workers, residents, and occupants from risks 
associated with hazardous wastes in the soil by requiring a site assessment and mitigation of any risks 
identified as a condition for construction of a planned project. If de watering were required for 
construction activities, the pumped groundwater would be discharged to the sewer system in compliance 
with Article 4. 1 of the San Francisco Public Works Code, described in the Water Quality section. 
Compliance with the requirements of Article 22A, if construction of the project includes the disturbance 
of more than 50 cubic yards of soil, and Article 4.1, if dewatering is required, would reduce impacts 
related to exposure to hazardous materials in the soil and groundwater to a less-than-significant level. 

Hazardous Building Materials 

Some building materials commonly used in older buildings, such as those that would be demolished as 
part of the proposed project, could present a public health risk if disturbed during an accident or 
improperly handled during demolition. These potentially hazardous building materials include asbestos- 
containing materials, electrical equipment such as transformers and fluorescent light ballasts that contain 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors, and lead-based paints. 
Sampling performed at the site in 2000 and 2003 (North Tower Environmental, 2003) demonstrated that 
some of the materials used in the building, including flooring materials, ceiling and wall materials, 
window sealants, insulation, roofing tars and mastics, and various adhesives contained asbestos and that 
paint chips from the buildings were lead-based. These materials were abated and properly disposed of in 
April 2003 in preparation for demolition of the wharf (North Tower Environmental, 2003). Therefore, 
because hazardous building materials at the project site have already been properly abated, potential 
impacts related to hazardous building materials would be less than significant and require no further 
analysis in the EIR. 

Creosote-Treated Piles 

Wood piles that are used to support the existing wharf and buildings have been treated with creosote, 
which is an effective marine wood preservative, but may contain organic compounds toxic to marine 
organisms. Under California law (Health and Safety Code §25 143), the pilings would not be considered a 
hazardous waste, unless otherwise classified by federal regulations, and can be disposed of at an 
appropriately permitted composite-lined waste disposal facility. Therefore, no hazards impacts related to 
disposal of creosote treated pilings are anticipated. 

Hazardous Materials Use During Operation 

Operation of a new fish processing facility could involve the use of standard chemicals, including 
solvents, cleaning products, oils, and the like, as well as refrigerants and other commercial-industrial 
chemicals. Because of the relatively small size of the proposed fish processing operation, and because the 
use of more hazardous chemical products is well regulated, the use of hazardous materials as part of 
project operation would be at minimal quantities and would not be expected to cause an adverse impact to 
public health. If significant quantities of hazardous materials are used and/or stored at the facility 
(755 gallons or 250 cubic yards, or 500 pounds), the facility operator is required to register with the 
Department of Public Health Hazardous Materials Unified Program Agency (DPH HMUPA), and 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



54 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



develop and implement an emergency response plan, training plan, and hazardous waste reduction plan in 
compliance with DPH HMUPA requirements. 

Fire Hazards; Emergency Response or Evacuation Plans 

The project would result in a small increase in activity and on-site employment at the project site, 
compared to existing conditions. However, the project would include replacement of an aging structure 
with a new pier and building constructed in accordance with current building and fire codes. Therefore, 
the project would not result in a significant fire hazard, nor would it interfere with emergency response or 
evacuation plans. 

Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR 

The project site is subject to the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan. No significant hazards impacts were 
identified in the 1997 Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR and no mitigation measures were identified related 
to hazards. However, the EIR did specify one improvement measure requiring abatement of hazardous 
building materials prior to demolition of a building. This measure has already been carried out as 
discussed above in the Hazardous Materials section of this Initial Study. 

As shown in the discussion, there would be no significant impacts on hazards; therefore, hazards will not 
be analyzed further in the EIR. 



13) Cultural Resources - Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

(a) Disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or 
historic archaeological site or a property of 
historic or cultural significance to a community 
or ethnic or social group; or a paleontological 
site except as a part of a scientific Study? X 

(b) Conflict with established recreational, 
educational, religious or scientific uses of the 
area? 

(c) Conflict with the preservation of buildings 
subject to the provisions of Article 10 or Article 
1 1 of the City Planning Code? 



Archaeological Resources 

The project site is sensitive for submerged prehistoric and historic archaeological resources that are 
potentially eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Early prehistoric 
resources may lie within San Francisco Bay submerged by sediment deposition and the rise in sea-level 
since the last period of glaciation. In addition, there is a possibility that three Gold Rush period 
shipwrecks may be located within the project site: the Tonquin (sunk in 1849); the Carlota (sunk in 
1850), and the Samoset (sunk in 1852). Submerged remains of any of the three shipwrecks may be 
eligible for listing in CRHR under Criterion A (association with a locally, regionally, and nationally 



X 



X X 



X 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



55 

203428 



Wharf J-IO Demolition and Reconstruction 



significant historical event, the California Gold Rush); Criterion C (significance to Naval Architecture for 
information regarding wood ship construction in the period prior to the trade practice of developing pre- 
construction plans); and under Criterion D (significant maritime historical/archaeological research value) 
as a contributor to the National Register-listed California Gold Rush Shipwrecks Thematic Group. 

Pile driving activities related to the proposed retrofitting of the wharf or any excavation, pile driving or 
dredging required for construction of the new superstructure could adversely affect submerged legally- 
significant archaeological resources (historical maritime remains, early prehistoric deposits). This topic 
will be addressed in the EIR. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

As noted previously, the Fish Alley Study Area Historic Resources Evaluation and Design 
Recommendations concluded that the fish processing building on the project site, along with two other 
buildings in the area, were determined potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Places as 
contributory buildings to a potential historic district. The existing Wharf J- 10 building would be 
demolished as part of the project. This topic will be addressed in the EIR. 



D. MniGATlON MEASURES 

Yes No N/A Discussed 

1) Could the project have significant effects if mitigation 

measures are not included in the project? X X 

2) Are all mitigation measures necessary to eliminate 

significant effects included in the project? X X 



Subsequent to initial approval on January 9, 1997, of the Port of San Francisco's 1997 Waterfront Land 
Use Plan FEIR (including the mitigation measures contained therein), the Port Commission adopted 
Resolution 97-50 on June 24, 1997, approving the Waterfront Land Use Plan. The adopted resolution 
included an amended set of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. Some of these measures are 
included here, but have been modified to address more specifically the adverse or potentially adverse 
environmental impacts associated with the project analyzed in this Initial Study. Additional measures are 
referenced in this section because they are directly applicable to the project analyzed in this Initial Study. 
Finally, some of the measures that the Port Commission adopted in connection with the Waterfront Land 
Use Plan are not applicable to this project, and therefore, are not included in this Initial Study. The Port 
has agreed to implement all the mitigation measures listed below to eliminate the potentially significant 
effects of the proposed project that are related to topics determined in Section III of this Initial Study to 
require no further analysis. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



56 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



CONSTRUCTION AIR QUALITY 



Mitigation Measure 1 - Demolition/Construction Activity Air Quality Impacts 18 

The project sponsor shall require contractor(s) to spray the sites with water during demolition, 
excavation, and construction activities; spray unpaved construction areas with water at least twice 
per day; cover stockpiles of soil, sand, and other material; cover trucks hauling debris, soils, sand, 
or other such material; and sweep surrounding streets during demolition, excavation, and 
construction at least once per day to reduce particulate emissions. 

Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that non-potable 
water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the project sponsor shall require that the 
contractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for this purpose. The project 
sponsor shall require the project contractor(s) to maintain and operate construction equipment so as 
to minimize exhaust emissions of particulates and other pollutants, -by such means as a prohibition 
on idling motors when equipment is not in use or when trucks are waiting in queues, and 
implementation of specific maintenance programs to reduce emissions for equipment that would be 
in frequent use for much of the construction period. 

BIOLOGY 

Mitigation Measure 2 - Pier Replacement 

To the extent feasible, the Port shall limit pier replacement to between March 1 and November 30 
to eliminate any potentially significant impacts of pile driving or pier replacement on the Pacific 
herring fishery. In the event that pier replacement operations must conflict with the herring season, 
the Port shall consult with the permitting agencies, including but not necessarily limited to the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, Bay Conservation and 
Development Commission, State Lands Commission, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. 
The Port shall comply with specific monitoring requirements established by these and other 
agencies to avoid impacts on the herring fishery. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR 
Measure H-l). 

Mitigation Measure 3 - Demolition/Construction Activity 

Prior to demolition or renovation of any abandoned building between August 15 and October 15, or 
between February 1 and May 1, a survey(s) shall be conducted during the same period by a 
qualified bat biologist. 

If Townsend's western big-eared bat, a California Species of Special Concern, is found during an 
August - October survey, appropriate exclusion devices approved by California Department of Fish 
and Game (CDFG) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Survey (USFWS) shall be installed by a 
qualified bat biologist. Once the bats have been excluded, demolition may occur. If Townsend's 
western big-eared bats are found during a February - May survey, demolition shall not take place 
until the end of the nursing season in August. Exclusion devices shall be placed by a qualified bat 
biologist in accordance with CDFG and USFWS. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure H-2). If no 
Townsend's western big-eared bats are found during the survey(s), no additional mitigation is 
required. 



This mitigation measure is comparable to Mitigation Measure F-l from the WLUP EIR (p. 649). 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



57 

203428 



Wharf J- JO Demolition and Reconstruction 



GEOLOGY 



Mitigation Measure 4 - Geotechnical Investigation/Demolition 

A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer 
prior to permitting any new construction or reuse of an existing structure for new uses that could 
increase the load of the structure. The investigation shall be performed to evaluate subsurface 
conditions and existing foundation conditions at the site. The geotechnical investigation shall 
evaluate the potential hazards such as settlement, ground shaking, ground rupture, liquefaction, 
subsidence, slope stability, and lateral spreading. Recommendations shall be made regarding the 
design of new foundations, upgrading of existing foundations, seismic design, and mitigation of 
geologic hazards. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure 1-1) 

Mitigation Measure 5 - Pier Replacement 

Piles that are in poor condition shall be repaired or demolished and removed. If repaired, piles that 
are deteriorated shall be replaced or the portion that is rotted or deteriorated shall be cut off and 
replaced with a concrete-filled steel sleeve. A structural engineer shall be consulted regarding the 
repair of the piers. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-10b) 

Mitigation Measure 6 - Pile Driving Plan 

Prior to any vibration producing pile driving, the applicant shall submit and the Port shall review a 
pile driving plan and an analysis of potential impact to adjacent properties to determine whether the 
potential exists to damage off-site property. 

As a standard practice, the Port shall require an application package that will indicate the amount of 
pile driving and the period over which pile driving may be required. The package shall include a 
survey of adjacent structures with information concerning their age, foundation type, construction 
type, status as a historic landmark or structure of special significance, and record of any existing 
damage. The package shall also identify adjacent City streets and the location of buried 
infrastructure. In addition, the application shall indicate any specific mitigation measures 
incorporated into the project to minimize hazards to structures. (Revised from the WLUP 1997 
FEIR Measure I-3a and 1-4) 

Mitigation Measure 7 - Potential Damage from Pile Driving 

To minimize pile driving hazards, the construction project shall provide supports to adjacent 
structures, including foundation support if needed. (Revised from 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-3b 
and 1-4) 

The applicant for the construction project shall post a surety bond to cover the costs of potential 
damage to off-site property from construction involving vibration inducing pile driving. (The bond 
is included as a mitigation measure because of the uncertainty that other mitigation measures shall 
protect off-site property from damage. If needed, the bond shall be used to repair off-site damage 
and thus mitigate that impact.) The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Port. (Revised 
from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-3c and 1-4) 

Mitigation Measure 8 - Pile Driving Notification 

Prior to any construction that would require pile driving, the Port shall notify all property owners 
within 300 feet of the proposed construction activity at least three months prior to the date of 
initiating demolition or excavation, whichever is the first activity to occur. The Port shall provide 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



58 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



an opportunity for all property owners to comment on the construction activity and allow them the 
opportunity to have their property photo-documented for its pre-construction condition. The Port is 
responsible for inspection of construction activities and should note any observations of proven or 
suspected subsidence damage on the site and at adjacent sites. This measure would allow adjacent 
property owners to document the condition of their property prior to initiation of an activity that 
could result in damage. If damage does occur, the measure would help to identify the extent of the 
damage caused by construction. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-3d and 1-4) 

Mitigation Measure 9 - Earthquake Hazards 

To minimize hazards to the future building occupants from non-structural damage, the Port shall 
require that building occupants carry out the following measures at a minimum: heavy objects 
should be attached to secure walls and floors, and light, loose objects should be placed to minimize 
their potential to move or overturn; large storage containers should not be loosely stacked, and 
those stored on shelves should have appropriate restraints or other means to prevent them from 
tipping or sliding off the shelves. 

Heavy objects like freezers, boilers, chillers, laboratory equipment, battery racks and electrical 
transformers, heavy storage cabinets, tanks, safes, oversize file cabinets, etc., shall be firmly 
secured to floors and walls to prevent their falling or sliding. All equipment using natural gas shall 
be anchored. Care shall be taken to avoid placement of such objects where they could topple or 
move and block exit doors. (Revised from 1997 the WLUP FEIR Measure I-7b) 

Non-structural interior elements (ceilings, partitions, light fixtures, HVAC, pipes, etc.) shall be 
designed to withstand strong ground shaking and remain intact. This shall be accomplished, for 
example, by selecting lightweight materials and firmly securing them to structural elements of the 
building and by using flexible connections for pipes. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-7d) 

The Port shall require the use of flexible utility connections and fasten water heaters to walls. 
Require the installation of automatic shut-off valves in all natural gas pipelines and provide similar 
emergency shut-off valves for other gas (oxygen and nitrogen) systems. Do not install automatic 
shut-off valves for water supplies. Require the posting of room/building layout diagrams that 
indicate the location of shut-off valves for natural gas. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-7e) 

The Port shall require fire extinguishers in all rooms and hallways and adjacent to all exit doors 
(including stairwell exits). Require that cabinets are not placed where they could overturn and 
block access to fire extinguishers. Require the training of all staff of offices, hotels, industrial 
facilities, restaurants and entertainment complexes in the use of fire extinguishers. (1997 WLUP 
FEIR Measure I-7f) 

Implementation of this measure would reduce the hazards of an earthquake to an acceptable level of 
risk, within the requirements of the City of San Francisco. Earthquake hazards could not be 
entirely eliminated, and the proposed project would therefore result in significant effects related to 
earthquake hazards that could not be fully mitigated, by exposing increased numbers of persons to 
substantial danger in an earthquake. 

Mitigation Measure 10 - Hazardous Materials Related to Earthquake Hazards 

The Port shall take feasible steps to minimize potential earthquake safety risks related to hazardous 
materials in its operations and that of its tenants. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



59 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Specific steps may include appropriate seismic safety provisions, such as prohibiting the storage of 
hazardous materials in containers above head level (about five feet); anchoring hazardous materials 
shelves and heavy equipment to walls and floors; constructing heavy doors that are designed to 
remain shut during earthquake vibrations; providing hand-operable closures for vents and air ducts; 
and other provisions as discussed in the Association of Bay Area Governments' Hazardous Material 
Problems in Earthquakes: A Guide to Their Cause and Mitigation. Other measures shall be 
implemented as recommended by the San Francisco Fire Department and/or Health Department. 
Additionally, The Port shall prepare an Emergency Procedures Manual and periodically revise it to 
be consistent with changes in the facilities and operations. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-8a) 

The Port shall require the tenant to design all facilities for storage of hazardous chemicals in 
containers, such as cabinets, shelves, and drawers, to minimize potential hazards in an earthquake. 
The Port would require tenants to report on compliance and should conduct inspections for 
compliance (or contract with the Fire Department and/or Health Department to carry out 
inspections). 

Storage facilities would include safety lips to contain spills and to reduce the likelihood of contents 
falling. All shelves and cabinets should be secured to a wall or ceiling. All cabinets and drawers 
should be provided with positive latches that would not open during earthquake motions and 
vibrations. Compressed gas cylinders, including empty ones, should be secured to fixed features. 
Gas cylinders should be secured at two locations along their vertical axis, one in the top one-third 
of the cylinder and another in the bottom third of the cylinder. 

The Port would require storage of hazardous chemicals in approved containers and separation of 
incompatible chemicals in separate storage areas. If chemical storage is vented by an electric fan, 
an alternative (emergency) means of ventilation would be provided, which may be a mechanical 
(non-powered) vent. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-8b) 

Mitigation Measure 11 - Tsunamis 

At the time of anticipated tsunami incursion, the San Francisco Police Department shall close off 
the immediate waterfront area of Aquatic Park, Fisherman's Wharf and the Hyde Street Pier to the 
public; all marina operators should close off access to the docks for the public and boat owners; and 
ferry boat operators should prevent people from standing on water-level ferry loading docks 
everywhere in the Project Area. 

This mitigation measure would help to reduce the potential for casualties to occur from tsunami by 
keeping people away from areas where injury could occur. Damage to facilities would not be 
mitigated. (1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I- 11 a) 

Mitigation Measure 12 - Facility Design 

The Port and/or project occupants shall employ an engineer qualified in earthquake engineering to 
incorporate into the final design of individual facilities included in the project all economically 
feasible engineering methods to reduce the potential for loss of life-line services. This may include 
methods to improve unstable ground conditions, to strengthen infrastructure to be more resistant to 
earthquake induced ground movements, and to organize and prepare for earthquake response. 

While specialized techniques for ground improvement to reduce liquefaction hazards likely are not 
practical or economically feasible over large areas, ground improvements within selected strategic 
sites may result in substantial hazard reduction to utility systems. In such areas a variety of ground 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



60 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



stabilization techniques may be considered, such as compaction grouting, placement of stone 
columns, and deep soil mixing. (Revised from the 1997 WLUP HEIR Measure I-9a) 

The project design shall incorporate flexible connections for utility lines and provide back-up 
supplies of water, power generators, and battery-operated telecommunications equipment. (Revised 
from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I-9b) 

Mitigation Measure 13 - Facility Inspection 

Following construction of the proposed project, an inspection schedule shall be developed and 
followed for regular inspection and evaluation of the condition of the piers. In conjunction with the 
inspection schedule, a maintenance and repair schedule shall be developed and implemented. 
(Revised from the 1997 WLUP FEIR Measure I- 10a) 

Some measures specified in the FEIR do not apply to the project analyzed in this Initial Study and are not 
included above. The measures not included are: 

• 1-2 specifying requirements for open sub-grade structures and pits because there would be 
no sub-grade structures or pits created as a result of this project. 

• 1-5 specifying requirements for dredging projects because dredging would not be required 
for the proposed project. 

• 1-6 requiring that areas not immediately redeveloped be secured against life safety hazard 
and the potential to damage adjacent properties. 

• I-7a regarding new high-occupancy and mid-rise structures (i.e. on the order of 6 to 15 
stories) because the project would not include a high-occupancy or mid-rise structure. 

• I-7c requiring emergency response supply and equipment storage for high occupancy 
buildings because the proposed project would not include a high occupancy building. 

• I-7g requiring the Port to prepare an emergency preparedness and response plan and to 
require facilities with over 100 visitors or employees to prepare their own plan because the 
required Port plan has been prepared and the proposed project would not include more than 
100 visitors or employees. 

• I-9c requiring the Port and the City's Office of Emergency Services to plan routes of 
alternative emergency access to development sites because this is outside of the 
requirements of the proposed project and should be completed by the Port. 

• 1-1 lb requiring construction of larger and higher breakwaters at the Hyde Street Pier, 
Fisherman's Wharf, and marinas because this is outside of the scope of the proposed 
project. 

WATER QUALITY 

Mitigation Measure 14 - Construction Activities 

The Port would ensure that construction activities are scheduled to avoid conflict with special 
activities of the nearby swimming clubs. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



61 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



Mitigation Measure 15 - Storm Water Runoff at F. Alioto Site 

Storm water runoff from the roof of the proposed F. Alioto building shall be directed through 
gutters and roof leaders towards discharge to the Bay. Roofing materials shall be specified to 
minimize introduction of pollutants into storm water runoff. This measure, if consistent with all 
applicable water quality regulations, could reduce volumes flowing to the combined sewer system. 

Mitigation Measure 16 - Storm Water Runoff at Cal Shell Site 

Storm water runoff from the Cal Shell support space along Fish Alley shall be collected and treated 
prior to discharge to the Bay. This measure could further reduce volumes flowing to the combined 
sewer system, if consistent with all applicable water quality regulations. 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Mitigation Measure 17 - Health and Safety Plan 

Potential hazards to construction workers and the general public during demolition and construction 
shall be mitigated by the preparation and implementation of a site-specific health and safety plan. 
The health and safety plan shall meet the requirements of federal, state and local environmental and 
worker safety laws. Specific information to be provided in the plan includes identification of 
contaminants, potential hazards, material handling procedures, dust suppression methods, personal 
protection clothing and devices, controlled access to the site, health and safety training 
requirements, monitoring equipment to be used during construction to verify health and safety of 
the workers and the public, measures to protect public health and safety, and emergency response 
procedures. 

Mitigation Measure 18 - Soil Classification 

During construction, excavated soil shall be stockpiled on plastic, sampled for waste classification 
purposes, and legally disposed of. In the event that the soil were characterized as a hazardous waste 
according to State or Federal criteria, the soil shall be disposed of at a Class I disposal facility. Soil 
classified as a non-hazardous waste could be disposed of at a Class II or III disposal facility in 
accordance with applicable waste disposal regulations. 

E. OTHER Yes No Discussed 



Require approval and/or permits from City Departments 
other than Planning Department or Department of Building 
Inspection, or from Regional, State, or Federal Agencies? 

X X 



A summary of the permit approvals required from other agencies is provided in Section I of this Initial 
Study (see p. 19). 

IV. ALTERNATIVES 

The EIR will analyze alternatives to the project that would reduce or eliminate any significant 
environment effects. These alternatives are expected to include: 



Case No. 2001.0636E 



62 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



1. No Project (No demolition) Alternative. The existing building and substructure on the site would 
continue to deteriorate, increasing the risk of failure. 

2. Historic rehabilitation of the Wharf J- 10 building and substructure for receiving uses per 
Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

3. Reconstruction of the fish processing facility at Wharf J- 10, incorporating salvaged portions of 
the historic building to provide architectural character per the Architectural Resources Group 
(ARG) Design Guidelines for the Fish Alley Architectural Character District (but which would 
not necessarily meet Secretary of Interior Standards). 

4. Construction of an all-new fish handling facility on entire site, designed consistent with the ARG 
Design Guidelines for the Fish Alley Architectural Character District. 



E. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Yes No Discussed 



1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a 
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population 
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a 
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict 
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or 
eliminate important examples of the major periods of 

California history or pre-history? X X 

2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, 

to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X 

3) Does the project have possible environmental effects 
which are individually limited, but cumulatively 
considerable? (Analyze in the light of past projects, other 

current projects, and probable future projects.) X X 

4) Would the project cause substantial adverse effects on 

human beings, either directly or indirectly? X 



The demolition of Wharf J-10 could impact archaeological resources and would eliminate an historic 
resource, both of which are potentially eligible for the California Register. These impacts will be addressed 
in the EIR. 



Case No. 200I.0636E 



63 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



F. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY 



I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a 

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the Department of City Planning. 

. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there 

WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures, numbers 1-6 , in the 
discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 
will be prepared. 

X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 





Date 



PAUL MALTZER 
Environmental Review Officer for 
GERALD G. GREEN 



Director of Planning 
Planning Department 



Case No. 200J.0636E 



64 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



203428 



REFERENCES: 



All references are available for review by appointment as part of the project environmental file at the 
Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File No. 2001.0636E. 

Architectural Resources Group Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc., "Fish Alley Study Area 
Historic Resources Evaluation and Design recommendations". Prepared for the Port of San 
Francisco and the Fisherman's Wharf Waterfront Advisory group, September 2001 

Association of Bay Area Governments, Earthquake Hazard Maps for San Francisco (various earthquake 
scenarios). 2003. 

Bazargani, Mohammed, Associate, TRC Customer-Focused Solutions, "Quarterly Progress Report, Third 
Quarter 2001," prepared for the Regional Water Quality Control Board, October 15, 2001. 

Bazargani, Mohammed, Associate, TRC Customer-Focused Solutions, telephone conversation with Sally 
Maxwell, Principal of Maxwell & Associates, March 22, 2002. 

California Geologic Survey. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones, City and County of San 
Francisco, Official Map. November 17, 2001. 

City of San Francisco, Hyde Street Fishing Harbor/Pier 45 Sheds A & C Environmental Impact Report, 
case file 93.574E, State Clearinghouse No. 94073023, certified December 12, 1996 

City of San Francisco, Port of San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Report, 
case file 94. 155E, State Clearinghouse No. 94 123007, certified January 9, 1997 

City of San Francisco, Fisherman's Wharf Hotel Negative Declaration, Case File No. 97.856E, finalized 
February 25, 1999. 

City of San Francisco, San Francisco General Plan, Community Safety Element. 

Maxwell, Sally E., Principal, Maxwell & Associates, Field survey, conducted on March 24, 2002. 

North Tower Environmental, 2003. Asbestos and Lead Related Work Activities, Port of San Francisco, 
Wharf J- 10, San Francisco, California. May 12. 

Port of San Francisco, Fishery Wharf J- 10 Emergency Engineering Study, Revised Draft, undated. 

Port of San Francisco, Waterfront Land Use Plan, January 2000. 

Port of San Francisco, Waterfront Land Use Plan, Design and Access Element Fish Alley Amendment, 
adopted October 4, 200 1 . 

Port of San Francisco, Memorandum: Wharf J-10 Site Visit Made on March 29, 2004 and March 31, 
2004, April 1,2004. 

SCA Environmental, Inc.-, "Summary Report: Bulk Asbestos and Lead Survey, Port of San Francisco, 
Wharf J-10, San Francisco, California," prepared for Port of San Francisco, Environmental Health 
and Safety Office, October 26, 2000. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



65 

203428 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 200_. Conditional Approval of Low Threat to 
Water Quality Activities, Northern Embarcadero Area, City and County of San Francisco. 

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), 2002. National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NRDES) Permit No. CA0037664, Order No.2002-0073, for City 
and County of San Francisco Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant, North Point Wet Weather 
Facility, and Bayside Wet Weather Facilities, adopted June 19, 2002. 

State of California, Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, Licensing 
Information System Directory Report, July 2004. 

State Water Resources Control Board, 1997, State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), 
Water Quality Order No. 97-03-Dwq National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
General Permit No. CasOOOOOl (General Permit), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRS) For 
Discharges Of Storm Water Associated With Industrial Activities Excluding Construction 
Activities. Available at www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr . 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 

2002 - 2031. By Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, Open File Report 03-214, 
2003. 



Case No. 2001. 0636 E 



66 

203428 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Reconstruction 



APPENDIX B 



ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP DESIGN REVIEW 



L INTRODUCTION 

At the request of Environment Science Associates (ESA) Architectural Resources Group (ARG) 
has prepared an analysis of the design scheme of the proposed Alioto-Lazio Fish Company 
Building. The drawings were prepared by Gilbert Murphy, architect, and are included in the 
Notice of An Environmental Impact Report, April 2, 2004. This review will serve as a stand- 
alone technical appendix of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be completed by ESA. 

The proposed structure will be a pile-supported, fish-processing building for use by F. Alioto Fish 
Company within its leasehold on the western side Wharf J- 10. The building would encompass a 
total of 17, 312 sq. ft. including approximately 9,822 sq. ft. on the "Wharf (ground floor) and 
mezzanine levels and 7,490 sq ft of area on the first floor. Approximately 4,200 sq. ft. of the 
northern side of the building would be built on the portion of the wharf that hangs over the water, 
supported by piles, and approximately 3,200 sq. ft. would be built on land on the southern side of 
the building. The building will be approximately 32 feet in height, measured according to the 
Planning Code, with limited roof elevation of approximately 35 feet above the main entrances on 
the north and south elevations. In addition a 10-foot wide wharf deck would span the entire 
length of the north side of the proposed building over the San Francisco Bay. 

Paramount to designing a new building within the context of an historic, or architecturally 
significant area is understanding the history, urban organization, natural features, materials, 
architectural styles, and historic uses that define the area. Historic and architectural character 
districts are generally defined by the dominant continuity of features within a collection of 
building, and it is therefore the repetition of a common feature that contributes to the overall 
historic, architectural, and visual character of the area. ARG staff has analyzed the design of the 
proposed building for its compliance with the Design Criteria for Seawall Lots 302 & 303 (Fish 
Alley Area) adopted by the Port Commission in October 2001 as part of the Fish Alley 
Amendments to the Waterfront Design & Access Element of the Port of San Francisco 
Waterfront Land Use Plan. This analysis first presents a recommendation from one of adopted 
design criteria (marked with a bullet) followed by an analysis of the compliance of the current 
project (in italics). 

II. FISH ALLEY DESIGN CRITERIA 

VIEWS 

• View corridors down Jones and Leavenworth Streets should be maintained by 
discouraging new development along these two streets within Fish Alley. 

The proposed building does not block these view corridors. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxX203428 



B-1 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



B. ARCHITECTCURAL RESOURCES GROUP DESIGN REVIEW 



• Existing Views can be maintained by limiting the height of new development within Fish 
Alley to two stories. 

The proposed building would be two stories and appears to meet the recommendations. 
However, because the proposed building would have a mezzanine and a full second story, its 
32-foot height would be greater than the height of the existing single-story-plus-mezzanine Wharf 
J-10 building, which is about 18 feet tall. The new building would also be taller than most 
surrounding structures in the Fish Alley area. Therefore, the new building would be more visible 
in views toward the bay, such as from Jefferson Street, than the existing building. 

MASSING 

• Articulate the massing of new development and additions so that they respect the 
building widths, heights, and simple massing and detailing of Fish Alley's [in this case 
the warehouses] existing buildings. 

The new building would be long and rectangular; however its footprint would be smaller than the 
existing footprint. Further, the stepped roof section in the middle of the roofline creates a 
dominant central feature not typical of the Fish Alley structures. Intermediate roofs above the 
first floor level openings, like those of the new building, are not common to the undecorated shed 
warehouses of Fish Alley and are not compatible. 

• The footprint of new development and additions to existing buildings along Jefferson 
Street should extend the width of the lot with no side setbacks so that the continuity of 
the street facade wall is maintained. 

The project site does not front Jefferson Street and, therefore, this criterion is not applicable to 
the proposed project. 

SCALE 

• Appreciate the scale that the typical building heights of neighboring buildings contribute 
to the character of the streetscape by holding new development to two stories or less. 

As noted under Views, the proposed building would be two stories and appears to meet the 
recommendations. However, the proposed building would be taller than the existing Wharf J-10 
building and most surrounding structures in the Fish Alley area. 

SITE COVERAGE 

• The front setbacks of new development along Jefferson Street should vary slightly in 
keeping with existing architectural pattern. 

The project site does not front Jefferson Street and, therefore, this criterion is not applicable to 
the proposed project. 

• The placement of infill development on the interior of the Fish Alley Area should not 
encroach on the boundaries of the narrow alleyways, and should serve to enhance the 
delineation of the edges. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjfi203428 



B-2 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



B. ARCH1TECTCURAL RESOURCES GROUP DESIGN REVIEW 



The project would not encroach upon the boundaries of the alleyways within the Fish Alley area. 
However, the proposed building would not enhance the delineation of the alleyway edges, in that 
the footprint of the proposed building would be about half that of the existing building at Wharf 
J-10. The resulting side setbacks interrupt the continuity ofthefagade wall and would not 
maintain the edges of Leavenworth and Hyde Streets. 

ARTICULATION 

• Opening patterns should be designed to communicate a human scale to pedestrians by 
articulating floor levels, or through glazing divisions; 

The drawings provided show openings but do not indicate whether they are windows or doors or 
the proposed detailing of this fenestration. These details relating to materials and type of 
openings should be defined and reviewed before the project proceeds. First floor openings 
should be solid large cargo doors in keeping with the typical warehouse form. 

• New development or additions should respect existing patterns and proportions of 
alternating openings and solidity of walls; 

The proposed building shows the openings of the first and second floors as roughly the same size. 
In keeping with the Fish Alley warehouse type, the first floor openings should be significantly 
larger than those on the second (mezzanine) floor. The size and uniformity of proposed 
building's first and second floor openings is more typical of a commercial or office building, than 
an historic industrial warehouse and is not appropriate to Fish Alley 

CHARACTER 

• Along Jefferson Street, avoid blank ground floor walls by providing views into the 
ground floor of buildings. Allow awnings or arcades to extend commercial building 
activities onto and over the sidewalk area. 

The project site does not front Jefferson Street and, therefore, this criterion is not applicable to 
the proposed project. 

• Maintain the horizontal orientation of existing patterns throughout Fish Alley by aligning 
the horizontal elements of new development and additions with those of existing 
buildings; 

The drawings show a relatively tall building by Fish Alley standards with stacked openings in the 
center and at either end of the main Fish Alley fagade, which gives the building more of a vertical 
orientation than the existing Wharf J-10 building. The drawings of the proposed building do not 
indicate the wall material. Horizontal wood siding would be appropriate to enhance the 
building 's horizontal orientation. 

MATERIALS 

• Varying building materials between existing buildings and additions is encouraged to 
visually distinguish new from old; 

• New development and additions should be constructed with simple, industrial materials 
that typify those found throughout Fish Alley; 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



B-3 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



Vni. APPENDICES 



B. ARCHITECTCURAL RESOURCES GROUP DESIGN REVIEW 



Although corrugated metal siding is common throughout Fish Alley, the existing building is 
finished in wood siding, which would therefore be appropriate for the new building. The 
drawings of the proposed building do not indicate the wall material. This aspect of the new 
building should be reviewed when available for consistency with the Design Criteria. The 
existing building has a flat roof surrounded by a red-tile skirt. The similar roof of the proposed 
new building is therefore not inappropriate. However, as mentioned above, the raised center 
section and intermediate roofs above first floor openings are not typical or representative of the 
historic warehouses. 

SIGNAGE 

• New signage within the Fish Alley Study area should be kept simple and small scaled. 
The design of the new signage should be in keeping with the historic signs of Fish Alley. 
Painted wood signs hung off the buildings or painted directly on the buildings are 
encouraged. Neon signs are not appropriate for the Fish Alley Study area. 

The drawings of the proposed building shows signs that read "F. ALIOTO FISH CO. ALIOTO- 
LAZO" located on both the north and south elevations of the building. The signs appear to be 
placed directly on the building, which is in keeping with the Design Criteria. However, the 
drawings do not indicate the material of the base or lettering. This information should be 
reviewed before the project proceeds. 

SITE FURNISHINGS 

• Site furnishings and landscaping should be kept minimal and simple and should reflect 
the industrial and maritime character of the Fish Alley Study area. 

The site design is not indicated on the drawings of the proposed building. These should be 
reviewed for compliance with the Design Criteria when they are available. 

LANDSCAPING 

• New landscaping with the Fish Alley Study area should be limited to small-scaled 
plantings in planter boxes and should not include street trees. 

Landscaping is not indicated on the drawings of the proposed building. It should be reviewed for 
compliance with the Design Criteria when they are available. Historically, there was limited 
landscaping in Fish Alley and a complex planting plan or design incorporating decorative 
pavers, etc. would not be appropriate. 

SERVICE 

• Provide service access from interior alleys or north/south streets; 

Given the new building's location, service access would be from Fish Alley, and would be 
consistent with this Criterion. 

TRASH ENCLOSURES 

• Use fences or other lockable enclosures to screen trash facilities from public view, and 
incorporate appropriate water quality protective measures to comply with all water 
quality environmental laws and regulations! 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xzA203428 



B-4 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



B. ARCHITECTCURAL RESOURCES GROUP DESIGN REVIEW 



The drawings do not show trash enclosures, and this aspect of the new building should be 
reviewed when available for compliance with the Design Criteria. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The drawings for the Alioto-Lazio Fish Company are schematic and do not give all of the 
information needed to adequately assess the building for compliance with the Fish Alley Design 
Criteria. Design elements that require more information include: the details regarding the 
fenestration design, materials and details, , the exterior wall material, signage material, and site 
design and landscaping. The schematic drawings indicate many design elements that do not 
appear to be in compliance with the Design Criteria and industrial character of the warehouses 
such as: raised central roof section, intermediate roofs at the first floor level openings, side 
setbacks at the Leavenworth and Hyde Street elevations, proportion of first floor and second floor 
openings and the limited footprint of the building which would change the character of Fish 
Alley. 

The rectangular, horizontal massing of the building and its flat roof with red-tile skirt generally 
meet the Design Criteria. In addition, the proposed building does not block the view corridors or 
interrupt the desired pedestrian circulation. The building should be reviewed again for 
compliance with the Design Criteria once the design is more developed. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\20SxxxS203428 



B-5 



Wharf J-W Demolition and Improvements 



APPENDIX C 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



This appendix supplements the information provided in Chapter III.C of the EIR. It provides an 
overview of the hazardous materials regulatory framework; discusses relevant state, federal, and 
local statutes; and documents regulatory databases reviewed to identify permitted hazardous 
materials uses, environmental cases, suspect land uses, and spill sites in the vicinity of 
Wharf J- 10. 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are extensively regulated by various federal, state, 
regional, and local regulations, with the major objective of protecting public health and the 
environment. This section summarizes the overall regulatory framework governing hazardous 
materials management. 

FEDERAL REGULATIONS 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the lead agency responsible for 
enforcing federal regulations that affect public health or the environment. The primary federal 
laws and regulations include: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1974 (RCRA); the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); 
and the Superfund Act and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Federal statutes pertaining to 
hazardous materials and wastes are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). 

RCRA was enacted in 1974 to provide a general framework for the national hazardous waste 
management system, including the determination of whether hazardous wastes are being 
generated, techniques for tracking wastes to eventual disposal, and the design and permitting of 
hazardous waste management facilities. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment was 
enacted in 1984 to better address hazardous waste; this amendment began the process of 
eliminating land disposal as the principal hazardous waste disposal method. Other specific areas 
covered by the amendment include regulation of carcinogens, listing and delisting of hazardous 
wastes, permitting for hazardous waste facilities, and leaking underground storage tanks. 

CERCLA, also known as Superfund, was enacted in 1980 to ensure that a source of funds was 
available to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, compensate victims, address releases of 
hazardous materials, and establish liability standards for responsible parties. SARA amended 
CERCLA in 1986 to increase the Superfund budget, modify contaminated site clean up criteria 
and schedules, and revise settlement procedures. SARA also provides a regulatory program and 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxU03428 



C-1 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

fund for underground storage tank cleanups and Emergency Planning and Community Right- to- 
Know Program (EPCRA). 

In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which was implemented in 
1979. This act governs the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, cleanup, 
storage, and disposal of PCBs. Since 1978, the U.S. EPA has promulgated numerous rules further 
addressing all aspects of the life cycle of PCBs. The most recent rule was the Final Rule: 
Amendments to the TSCA PCB Disposal Regulations Including Amendments to the PCB 
Notification and Manifesting Rule promulgated on June 24, 1999. This rule is deregulatory in 
nature and provides individuals with more flexibility in their PCB disposal practices while 
continuing to provide protection from unreasonable risk. 

STATE AND REGIONAL REGULATIONS 

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board (RWQCB) are the primary state agencies regulating hazardous materials in 
California. These agencies are part of the Cal EPA. The RWQCB is authorized by the State Water 
Resources Control Board to enforce provisions of the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act 
of 1969. This act gives the RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the 
quality of groundwater or surface waters of the state is threatened, and to require remediation of 
the site, if necessary. The DTSC is authorized by the U.S. EPA to regulate the management of 
hazardous substances including the remediation of sites contaminated by hazardous substances. 

California hazardous materials laws incorporate federal standards but are often stricter than 
federal laws. The primary state laws include: the California Hazardous Waste Control Law 
(HWCL), the state equivalent of RCRA; and the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance 
Account Act (HSAA), the state equivalent of CERCLA. State hazardous materials and waste 
laws are contained in the California Code of Regulations, Titles 22 and 26. 

The HWCL, enacted in 1972 and administered by the DTSC, is the basic hazardous waste statute 
in California and has been amended several times to address current needs, including bringing the 
state law and regulations into conformance with federal laws. This act implements the RCRA 
"cradle-to-grave" waste management system in California but is more stringent in its regulation 
of non-RCRA wastes, spent lubricating oil, small quantity generators, transportation and 
permitting requirements, as well as in its penalties for violations. The HWCL also exceeds 
federal requirements by mandating the recycling of certain wastes, requiring certain generators to 
document a hazardous waste source reduction plan, requiring permitting for federally exempt 
treatment of hazardous wastes by generators, and stricter regulation of hazardous waste facilities. 

The HSAA, enacted in 1981, addresses similar concerns as CERCLA. The primary difference is 
in how liability is assigned for a site with more than one responsible party. This is important for 
petroleum clean up sites because federal law is usually used to force responsible party cleanups; 
state law is used for petroleum cleanup sites which are exempt from CERCLA. 

• f 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjfa03428 



C-2 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

Other relevant State of California statutes include: 

• The Toxic Pit Cleanup Act of 1984 and the Toxic Injection Well Act of 1985 which were 
established to provide a regulatory framework for open pits or injection wells as a means 
of hazardous waste or disposal; 

• The Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986 which coordinates the state's 
implementation of federal landfill bans and authorizes landfill bans for non-RCRA 
hazardous wastes; 

• The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act of 1989 which requires the owner or operator 
of aboveground petroleum storage tanks to file a storage statement with the State Water 
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) if tank storage exceeds 10,000 gallons and holds 
petroleum or petroleum product which is liquid at ambient temperatures. In addition, the 
tank or tanks must be registered if they are subject to federal requirements; this 
potentially expands the requirement for a storage statement to any tank over 660 gallons 
or aggregate storage of 1,320 gallons; 

• The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Act which required large 
quantity generators to document hazardous wastes being generated and to prepare a 
documented waste reduction plan beginning in 1991; 

• The Hazardous Waste Treatment Permitting Reform Act of 1992 which required a permit 
for any hazardous waste treatment by a generator beginning on April 1, 1993. This 
statute established a new tiered permitting program whereby on-site treatment facilities 
are permitted or authorized to operate subject to different levels of regulatory 
requirements depending on the nature and size of the treatment activity. Amendments to 
this statute adopted in 1993-96 have enacted certain exemptions and modified 
compliance requirements; and 

• The Hazardous Waste Management Reform Act of 1995 which required the DTSC to 
revise its regulations to more closely conform to federal hazardous waste identification 
criteria and essentially eliminate land disposal restrictions for California-only hazardous 
wastes among other major changes. However, many of these changes have been deferred 
to a DTSC advisory committee for further study and are not expected to be implemented 
for several years, and in certain cases, not at all. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (B AAQMD), a regional regulatory agency, may 
impose specific requirements on remediation activities to protect ambient air quality from dust or 
other airborne contaminants. 

LOCAL REGULATIONS 

In accordance Chapter 6.1 1 of the Health and Safety Code (Section 25404, et seq.), the 
San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH), is the primary local environmental 
regulatory agency responsible for enforcement of City, state and federal environmental health 
codes and regulations. The SFDPH is the administering agency for the Certified Uniform 
Program Agency (CUPA) regulations in the City and County of San Francisco. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203jccfi203428 



C-3 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

~ C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

As the CUP A, they are responsible for the following environmental programs: 

• Hazardous materials business plans (Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 
25501, et seq.); 

• The California accidental release prevention program for acutely hazardous materials 
(Chapter 6.95 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 25531, et seq.); 

• State Uniform Fire Code requirements (Section 80. 103 of the Uniform Fire Code as 
adopted by the State Fire Marshall pursuant to Health and Safety Code, Section 13143.9); 

• Underground storage tanks (Chapter 6.7 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 25280, et 
seq.); 

• Aboveground storage tanks (Health and Safety Code Section 25270.5(c); and 

• Hazardous waste generator requirements (Chapter 6.5 of the Health and Safety Code, 
Section 25100, et seq.). 

The SFDPH has the authority over monitoring the storage of flammable liquids, which includes 
underground tanks, and other hazardous materials. Under the local oversight program, the 
SFDPH also has a memoranda of understanding with the RWQCB that gives the City local 
oversight authority for leaking underground storage tank investigations and remediations. The 
San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), Bureau of Fire Prevention and Investigation, conducts 
inspections of underground storage tank installations and has permit authority over the storage of 
flammable liquids. 

City of San Francisco Hazardous Materials Regulations 

Three regulations from the San Francisco Health Code, summarized below, are relevant to 
demolition activities or construction and operation of the proposed project with respect to 
hazardous materials and hazardous waste. These include Article 22A (Analyzing the Soil for 
Hazardous Waste, formerly the Maher Ordinance), Article 21 (Hazardous Materials), and 
Article 22 (Hazardous Waste Management). 

Article 22 A- Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Waste 

Construction of projects located bayward of the historic high tide line that would involve 
excavation of greater than 50 cubic yards of soil would be subject to the requirements of Article 
22 A of the San Francisco Health Code. The requirements would be triggered by the building 
permit application or equivalent process for City or County projects. Major requirements include: 

• Preparation of a site history report to describe past site uses and identify whether the site is 
listed as a hazardous waste site pursuant to state-or federal regulations; 

• Implementation of a soil investigation to evaluate the potential presence of hazardous wastes 
in the soil; 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

C:\103xxiiQ03428 



C-4 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

• Preparation of a soil analysis report that evaluates the results of chemical analysis of the soil 
samples; 

• Preparation of a site mitigation plan if contamination is identified, assessing potential 
environmental and health and safety risks, recommending measures to mitigate the risks, 
identifying appropriate waste disposal and handling requirements, and presenting criteria for 
on-site reuse of soil; 

• Preparation of a certification report stating that either (1) no hazardous wastes present in the 
soil present an unacceptable risk and that no mitigation measures are required; or (2) all 
mitigation measures recommended in the site mitigation report have been completed and that 
completion of the mitigation measures has been verified through follow-up soil sampling and 
analysis, if required. 

Article 22A requires that the report(s) are prepared by knowledgeable, certified professionals and 
provide information on historic and current hazardous waste contamination at the property. The 
soil analysis report is submitted to the SFDPH, DTSC and the RWQCB and the measures 
recommended in the site mitigation plan would be completed during construction. If the approved 
site mitigation plan includes leaving hazardous materials in the soil or groundwater with 
containment measures to prevent exposure to hazardous materials, the SFDPH would require a 
Risk Management Plan, Health and Safety Plan, and possibly a Cap Maintenance Plan specifying 
procedures for preventing unsafe exposure to hazardous materials left in place and safe 
procedures for handling hazardous materials should site disturbance be required. The SFDPH 
would require a deed notice, and the requirements of these plans would transfer to the new 
property owners in the event that the property is sold. 

This article protects the health and safety of the City's workers, residents, and occupants from 
risks associated with hazardous wastes in the soil by requiring a site assessment and mitigation of 
any risks identified as a condition for construction of a planned project. 

Article 21 - Hazardous Materials 

Article 21 of the San Francisco Health Code provides for safe handling of hazardous materials in 
the City. In accordance with this article, any person or business that handles, sells, stores, or 
otherwise uses hazardous materials in quantities exceeding specified threshold amounts would be 
required to obtain and keep a current hazardous materials certificate of registration and to 
implement a hazardous materials business plan (HMBP) submitted with the registration 
application. Facilities with USTs are also required to obtain a permit to operate the tank. In 
addition to specifying permitting requirements for hazardous materials and USTs, Article 21 
prohibits unauthorized releases of hazardous materials and specifies requirements for reporting an 
unauthorized release, inspections after an unauthorized release, addressing abandoned USTs or 
hazardous materials handling facilities, and closure of hazardous materials handling facilities. 

This article helps protect the health and safety of the general community and emergency response 
personnel, such as fire fighters and paramedics. Data on hazardous materials use are stored in a 
city wide computer system and can be made available to emergency respondcrs. The Information 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxjX203428 



C-5 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



assists emergency responders to assess and resolve hazardous materials incidents quickly and 
safely. Inspections are performed by the City every one to two years or upon complaint. 

This article incorporates the California Underground Storage Tank Regulations specified in the 
California Health and Safety Code, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75; Hazardous Materials Release 
Response Plans and Inventory Regulations requiring preparation of an HMBP, and specified in 
the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Article 1; Aboveground Petroleum Storage 
Tank Regulations requiring preparation of a SPCC plan, and specified in the California Health 
and Safety Code, Section 25270.5; and hazardous materials management provisions of the 
Uniform Fire Code requiring Hazardous Materials Inventories specified in Sections 8001.3.2(a) 
and 8001.3.3(a). It also provides for additional stricter local requirements. 

Article 22 - Hazardous Waste Management 

Article 22 of the San Francisco Health Code provides for safe handling of hazardous wastes in 
the City. This article incorporates the state requirements for hazardous waste management 
specified in the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5, Article 2, and authorizes the 
SFDPH to implement the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Control Act related to hazardous 
waste generators in San Francisco. In accordance with this article, the SFDPH has the authority to 
conduct inspections of any facilities where hazardous wastes are stored, handled, processed, 
disposed of, or treated to recover resources and must maintain records to document compliance 
with the Hazardous Waste Control Act. Hazardous wastes generated at a facility would be 
disclosed in the Hazardous Materials Certificate of Registration and HMBP prepared for the 
facility in accordance with Article 21 of the San Francisco Health Code (described above). 

Chapter 34, Section 3407 of the San Francisco Building Code 

Chapter 34, Section 3407 of the San Francisco Building Code, Work Practices for Lead -Based 
Paint on Pre- 1979 Buildings and Steel Structures, includes requirements for projects that disturb 
lead-based paint on the exterior of buildings or steel structures. Where there is any work that may 
disturb or remove more than 10 total square feet of lead-based paint on the exterior of any 
building built prior to December 31, 1978, Chapter 34, Section 3407 requires specific notification 
and work standards and identifies prohibited work methods and penalties. 

The code contains performance standards, including establishment of containment barriers that 
are at least as effective at protecting human health and the environment as those outlined in US 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines (the most recent Guidelines 
for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards) and identifies prohibited practices that 
may not be used to remove lead-based paint. Any person performing work subject to Chapter 34, 
Section 3407 must make all reasonable efforts during the course of the work to prevent migration 
of lead -based paint contaminants beyond containment barriers, and any person performing 
regulated work must make all reasonable efforts to remove visible lead-based paint contaminants 
from regulated areas of the property prior to completion of the work. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xuS203428 



C-6 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

Chapter 34, Section 3407 also includes notification requirements, information the notice should 
contain, and requirements for signs. Notification includes informing bidders of any paint- 
inspection reports that verify the presence or absence of lead-based paint in the regulated area of 
the proposed project. Prior to commencement of work, the responsible party must provide 
written notice to the Director of the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) of the location of 
the project; the nature and approximate square footage of the painted surface being disturbed 
and/or removed; anticipated job start and completion dates for the work; whether the responsible 
party has reason to know or presume that lead-based paint is present; whether the building is a 
residential or nonresidential, owner-occupied, or rental property; the approximate number of 
dwelling units, if any; the dates by which the responsible party has or will fulfill any tenant or 
adjacent property notification requirements; and the name, address, telephone number, and 
pager/cell number of the party who will perform the work. The ordinance contains provisions 
regarding inspection and sampling for compliance by the DBI, and enforcement, and describes 
penalties for noncompliance with the requirements of the ordinance. 

This code protects the health and safety of the workers, residents, and occupants from risks 
associated with lead-based paint by including specific requirements to control lead-based paint 
during demolition activities. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

This section addresses specific requirements for hazardous materials management including 
requirements for: 

• Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBP); 

• California Accidental Release Program (CalARP); 

• Aboveground storage tanks, 

• Lead-based paint abatement; 

• Polychlorinated biphenyls; 

• Waste disposal; and 

• Health and safety 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLANS AND INVENTORIES 

Businesses that handle hazardous materials over certain threshold quantities are required by the 
State of California to submit an HMBP to the SFDPH as the local administering agency in the 
City and County of San Francisco. This document is used by City and County emergency 
response agencies for chemical emergency planning. The HMBP includes an inventory of 
hazardous materials used, and it is required to include the following: 

. • specific details on the facility covered by the plan, such as name and address; 

• an inventory of hazardous materials used and stored; 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



C-7 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

• a site and facility layout; 

• emergency response procedures; 

• procedures for immediate notification of the administering agency in the event of an 
emergency; 

• evacuation plans in the event of an emergency; 

• a description of the training employees have received in the evacuation and safety 
procedures; and 

• identification of local emergency medical assistance. 
CALIFORNIA ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PROGRAM 

The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program requires that facilities with 
processes handling more than a threshold quantity of a regulated acutely hazardous substance 
must be evaluated to determine the potential for accidental releases from that covered process. 
Under certain conditions specified by the CalARP regulation, the owner or operator is required to 
prepare and submit a risk management plan (RMP) to the SFDPH. The requirement for the RMP 
submission is in addition to a submission of an HMBP. 

The owner or operator should coordinate with the SFDPH to determine the appropriate level of 
documentation required for an RMP. Depending on the types of processes and the quantities of 
regulated substances being handled, the facility is subject to one of three RMP program levels, as 
specified in the CalARP regulation. The RMP may include the following requirements, 
depending on the program level: 

• Analyze a worst case accidental release scenario, as specified in the regulation; 

• For existing processes that are subject to the CalARP regulation, complete a five-year 
accident history; 

• Develop and implement a management system for handling the regulated substances; 

• Conduct a hazard assessment to develop accidental releases from the process that are 
more credible than the worst case analysis identified above; 

• Develop and implement an emergency response program; and 

• Submit, as part of the RMP, data on prevention program elements. 

Above Ground Storage Tanks 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1 12 also contains requirements for above 
ground storage of petroleum products. In accordance with these regulations, a petroleum tank of 
greater than 660 gallons or aggregate storage of over 1,320 gallons, which could reasonably 
discharge to a navigable water, is required to have a Spill Control and Countermeasure Plan (U.S. 
EPA Region DC, San Francisco, has taken a conservative stance, that virtually any large oil spill 
in California will enter federally regulated waters). The plan would include appropriate spill 
containment or equipment used to divert spills from sensitive areas, a discussion of facility 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxx\203428 



C-8 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



MIL APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

specific requirements for the storage system, inspections and a record keeping system, security 
for the system, and personnel training. 

Lead-Based Paint Abatement 

Lead-based paint is defined by state and federal regulations as paint containing lead at a 
concentration of 5,000 milligrams per kilogram (or 0.5%) or greater. In accordance with 
regulatory guidance, lead-based paint waste that has been separated from building materials (such 
as delaminated or chipping paint) must be evaluated separately from other building materials for 
waste disposal purposes during building demolition. Accordingly, any chipping or delaminated 
paint would need to be removed before any renovation or demolition activities. Depending on the 
level of lead identified in the paint, it may require disposal as a hazardous waste. Building 
materials which still have the paint adhered to them may generally be disposed of as regular 
construction debris, regardless of the lead level in the paint. 

The Lead in Construction Standard contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
Section 1926.62 applies to the removal of chipping or delaminated lead-based paint. In 
accordance with this standard, it is necessary for workers to wear respiratory protection until the 
work is completed or until an employee exposure assessment can demonstrate that air lead levels 
during scraping are below the PEL. Other applicable requirements of the standard include worker 
awareness training, use of protective clothing, provisions for change areas and hand washing 
facilities, biological monitoring, and development of a site specific compliance program. 
California regulations relating to the abatement of lead-based paint are contained in Title 8 of the 
California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1). These state regulations are similar to the Federal 
regulations. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 

PCB -containing oil was historically used in transformers and other electrical equipment. With the 
implementation of TSCA, the U.S. EPA banned the use of PCB -containing oil and prohibited the 
use of PCB -containing oil in electrical transformers in July of 1979. 

On June 29, 1998, the U.S. EPA issued its final rule concerning known and potential PCB- 
containing equipment. The regulations categorize transformers into these three categories on the 
basis of their PCB content: 

• Non-PCB: Transformers containing less than 50 ppm of PCBs; 

• PCB-Contaminated: Transformers containing 50 to less than 500 ppm of PCBs; and 

• PCB: Transformers containing 500 ppm of PCBs or greater. 

Under the final rule, in-use transformers whose PCB content is unknown but were manufactured 
before July 2, 1979 should be assumed to be non-PCB. In-use transformers manufactured before 
July 2, 1979 should be considered PCB-contaminated if filled with mineral oil and PCB if filled 
with a fluid other than mineral oil. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\Z03xxx\203428 



C-9 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



Under the final rule, the following electrical equipment can be considered non-PCB in the 
absence of sampling to demonstrate otherwise: 

• transformers with less than 3 pounds of fluid; 

• circuit breakers; 

• reclosers; 

• oil -filled cable; and 

• rectifiers. 

The actual PCB content of all transformers, regardless of the date of manufacture, must be 
determined prior to disposal. In addition, all transformers known or assumed to contain PCBs 
were required to be registered with the federal government by December 28, 1998 whether in use 
or in storage for reuse. 

Waste Disposal 

All California landfills have been segregated by regulatory authority into the categories of 
Class I, Class II and Class III facilities. Class I facilities can accept hazardous wastes with 
chemical levels below the federal land disposal restriction (land ban) treatment standards. 
Class II and III facilities can accept non-hazardous wastes that meet acceptance criteria 
determined by the state for organic and inorganic compounds. Each landfill has individual 
acceptance criteria and the appropriate disposal site for a waste would be determined on the basis 
of the classification of the waste and individual landfill acceptance criteria. 

In accordance with state and federal regulations, a waste is hazardous if it: 

• Is a listed hazardous waste as defined in RCRA; or 

• Exhibits the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity as defined in 
the California Code of Regulations. 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are defined in the California Code of Regulations, 
Title 22, Sections 66261.1 through 66261.126. A waste is considered toxic if it contains certain 
metals or organic substances at concentrations greater than federal toxicity regulatory levels using 
a test method called the TCLP; 25 if it contains certain substances at concentrations greater than 
the state regulatory levels, including the total threshold limit concentration TTLC 26 or the 



A waste would be considered hazardous if it contains a soluble concentration of the specified substance at a 
concentration greater than the federal toxicity characteristic level specified in CCR, Title 22, Section 66261.24 
(a)(i). The soluble concentration is determined using the TCLP, which involves a 20-to-l dilution of the sample. 
Because of this, the total concentration of a substance would need to exceed 20 times the TCLP level for the soluble 
concentration to possibly be greater than the TCLP level. 

In accordance with CCR, Title 22, Section 66261.24(a)(2), a waste would be considered hazardous on the basis of 
toxicity if it contains the specified substance at a total concentration greater than the TTLC. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxX203428 



C-10 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



Vffl. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



STLC; 27 if it contains specified carcinogenic substances at a single or combined concentration of 
0.001 percent; or if toxicity testing indicates toxicity greater than specified criteria. 

Class II and III landfills in the Bay Area have acceptance criteria for lead that are lower than the 
TCLP or STLC. Soil with total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations above the detection limit 
must be disposed of at an appropriate landfill facility or treated to reduce the levels of petroleum 
hydrocarbons in the soil. In general, soil with total petroleum hydrocarbon levels up to 100 
milligrams per kilogram can be disposed of at a Class III disposal facility. If the concentration is 
between 100 and 1,000 milligrams per kilogram, it can be disposed of at a Class II disposal 
facility; and if the concentration is greater than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram, Class I disposal 
would be required. 

Lead-based paint would be considered a hazardous waste because the total lead concentration 
would be greater than the TTLC of 1,000 milligrams per kilogram. It would be necessary to 
dispose of the paint at a Class I facility. 

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control has classified friable, finely divided and 
powdered wastes containing greater than one- percent asbestos as a hazardous waste. 28 A friable 
waste can be reduced to powder or dust under hand pressure when dry. Non-friable asbestos- 
containing wastes are not considered hazardous and are not subject to regulation under Title 22, 
Division 4.5 of the California Code of Regulations. The management of these wastes would still 
be subject to any requirements or restrictions which may be imposed by other regulatory 
agencies. The state standard for classification of asbestos wastes is contained in Section 
66261.24 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. Asbestos is not currently regulated as 
a hazardous waste under the RCRA; because of this it is considered a non-RCRA waste. 
Asbestos wastes, totaling more than 50 pounds, must be transported by a registered waste hauler 
to an approved treatment, storage or disposal facility. 

Wastes containing asbestos may be disposed of at any landfill which has waste discharge 
requirements issued by the RWQCB that allow disposal of asbestos-containing materials, 
provided that the wastes are handled and disposed of in accordance with the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, the Clean Air Act's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and 
Title 22 of the Code of California Regulations (Division 4.5). The Department of Toxic 
Substances Control also has treatment standards for asbestos-containing wastes, which require 
submittal of a notification and certification form to the land disposal facility as well as wetting 
and containment of the asbestos-containing materials. 



In accordance with CCR, Title 22, Section 66261.24(a)(2), a waste would be considered hazardous on the basis of 
toxicity if it contains the specified substance at a soluble concentration greater than the STLC. The soluble 
concentration is determined by performing a Waste Extraction Test, which involves at 10-to- 1 dilution of the 
sample. Because of this, the total concentration of a substance would need to exceed 10 times the STLC for the 
soluble concentration to possibly be greater than the STLC. 

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Fact Sheet, Asbestos Handling, Transport and Disposal, 
October 1993. 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxM03428 



C-ll 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



Vin. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

The owner of properties where hazardous wastes are produced or abatement would occur must 
have a Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by and registered with the California 
Department of Toxic Substances Control in Sacramento. The contractor and hauler of the 
material are required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest, which details the hauling of the 
material from the site and the disposal of the material. 

Hazardous Materials Worker Safety Requirements 

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed OSHA) and the California 
Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker 
safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining 
to worker safety are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 (29 CFR) as 
authorized in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe 
workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to hazardous materials handling. In 
California, Cal OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace 
safety regulations; Cal OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. 

The state regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace are included in 
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which contain requirements for safety training, 
availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance 
exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal OSHA also 
enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain worker safety training and 
hazard information requirements, such as procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous 
substances, communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their 
handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at 
hazardous waste sites. 

REGULA TOR Y DA T ABASE REVIEW 

A regulatory database review was conducted to identify permitted hazardous materials uses, 
environmental cases, and spill sites within specified distances of Wharf J-10 (EDR, 2005). The 
databases reviewed are listed in Tables C-l and C-2 with the date of each database reviewed. 
Each database is described in the following sections. 

A regulatory database review was conducted to identify permitted hazardous materials uses, 
environmental cases, and spill sites within Va mile of the Great Highway between Point Lobos 
Avenue and Skyline Boulevard (EDR, 2005). The databases reviewed are listed in Tables C-l and 
C-2 with the date of each database reviewed. Each database is described in the following sections. 

FEDERAL REGULATORY DATABASES 

Federal agencies publish numerous lists of sites that track permitted uses of hazardous materials, 
environmental cases, and spill sites. The lists reviewed are summarized in Table C-l. They 
include: 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

C:\203xxx\203428 



C-12 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



TABLE C-l 

FEDERAL REGULATORY DATABASES REVIEWED 



Name of List 


Responsible Agency 


Acronym 


Date of List 


National Priority List 


USEPA 


NPL 


12/14/04 


Proposed National Priority List Sites 


USEPA 


Proposed NPL 


12/14/04 


Superfund Consent Decrees 


USEPA 


CONSENT 


3/5/04 


Records of Decision 


USEPA 


ROD 


9/9/04 


Federal Superfund Liens 


USEPA 


NPL LIENS 


10/15/91 


National Priority List Deletions 


USEPA 


Delisted NPL 


12/14/04 


Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Information System 


USEPA 


CERCLIS 


12/14/04 


CERCLIS- No Further Remedial Action Planned 


USEPA 


CERCLIS NFRAP 


12/14/04 


Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System 


USEPA 


TRIS 


12/31/02 


Emergency Response Notification System 


USEPA 


ERNS 


12/31/03 


Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System 


USDOT 


HMIRS 


9/8/04 


Resource Conservation and Recovery Information 


USEPA 


RCRA 


11/23/04 


Biennial Reporting System 


USEPA 


BRS 


12/1/01 


RCRA Corrective Action Sites 


USEPA 


CORRACTS 


12/15/05 


RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System 


USEPA 


RAATS 


4/17/95 


Department of Defense Sites 


USGS 


DOD 


10/1/03 


Formerly Used Defense Sites 


USACOE 


FUDS 


12/31/03 


Brownfields Sites 


USEPA 


US BROWNFIELDS 


N/A 


Facility Index System 


USEPA 


FINDS 


9/9/04 


PCB Activity Database System 


USEPA 


PADS 


9/30/04 


Toxic Substances Control Act 


USEPA 


TSCA 


12/31/02 


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 
Act/TSCA 


USEPA 


FITS 


9/13/04 


Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act/liCA 


USEPA 


FTTS INSP 


4/13/04 


Section 7 Tracking Systems 


USEPA 


SSTS 


12/31/03 


Material Licensing Tracking System 


NRC 


MLTS 


1 1/30/04 


Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land 


USEPA 


INDIAN UST 


11/2/04 


Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land 


USEPA 


INDIAN LUST 


10/3/04 


Indian Reservations 


USGS 


INDIAN RESERV 


10/1/03 


Mines Master Index File 


MSHA 


MINES 


9/13/04 


Uranium Mill Tailings Sites 


USDOE 


UMTRA 


4/22/04 


Open Dump Inventory 


USEPA 


ODI 


6/30/85 



Source: Environmental Data Resources, 2005 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\103xxjtQ03428 



C-13 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



• The National Priority List (NPL) which is a subset of the CERCLIS database (described 
below) and includes priority sites for cleanup under the federal Superfund Program; 

• The Proposed NPL sites (Proposed NPL) which includes sites proposed for addition to 
the NPL; 

• Superfund Consent Decrees (CONSENT) which includes NPL sites with major legal 
settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup; 

• Records of Decision (ROD) list which includes NPL sites where a record of decision has 
been developed that mandates a permanent remedy and includes technical and health 
information to aid in the cleanup of the site; 

• Federal Superfund Liens (NPL LIENS) list which includes sites where the US EPA has 
filed liens against real property to recover remedial action expenditures or the property 
owner has been issued a notification of potential liability; 

• NPL Delisted sites (Delisted NPL) which includes sites that have been removed from the 
NPL because no further response is required in accordance with criteria contained in the 
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 

• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 
System (CERCLIS) which tracks potentially contaminated properties identified under 
CERCLA and SARA; 

• The CERCLIS No Further Action (CERCLIS -NFRAP) database which lists sites where, 
following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was 
removed quickly, or the contamination was not serious enough to require federal 
Superfund action or NPL consideration. As part of the U.S. EPA's Brownfields Program, 
these sites have been removed from the CERCLIS database to lift unintended barriers to 
redevelopment; 

• The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS) which identifies sites which 
release chemicals to the air, water, or land as required by Title III of the Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; 

• The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) which identifies spills of oil or 
hazardous substances reported pursuant to Section 103 of CERCLA as amended, 
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, and sections 300.51 and 300.65 of the National Oil 
and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; 

• The Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS) which includes 
hazardous material spill incidents that were reported to the US Department of 
Transportation; 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRA) which includes facilities 
permitted to handle hazardous wastes under RCRA including treatment, storage, and 
disposal facilities (RCRA-TSD); large quantity generators which report generation of 
greater than 1000 kilogram per month of non-acutely hazardous waste or 1 kilogram per 
month of acutely hazardous waste (RCRA-LQG); and small quantity generators which 
report generation of less than 1000 kilogram per month of non-acutely hazardous waste 
or 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste (RCRA-SQG); 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxXQ03428 



C-14 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

• Biennial Reporting System (BRS) which is a national system administered by the EPA 
that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous wastes. RCRA Large 
Quantity Generators and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities are included; 

• RCRA Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) which includes RCRA permitted facilities 
that are undergoing corrective action. A corrective action order is issued, when there has 
been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA 
facility. Corrective actions may be required beyond the facility's boundary and can be 
required regardless of when the release occurred, even if it predates RCRA; 

• RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System (RAATS) which includes enforcement 
actions taken under RCRA pertaining to major violations including administrative and 
civil actions brought by the US EPA; 

• Department of Defense Sites (DOD) which includes federally owned or administered 
lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have an area equal to or greater 
than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands; 

• Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) which includes formerly used defense site 
properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers is actively working or will take 
necessary cleanup actions; 

• Brownfields Sites (US BROWNFIELDS) which includes properties addressed by 
Cooperative Agreement Recipients and Targeted Brownfields Assessments; 

• Facility Index System (FINDS) which includes facility information and "pointers" to 
other sources that contain more detail. The following databases are included in FINDS: 
Permit Compliance System (PCS); Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS); 
Enforcement Dockets (DOCKET); Federal Underground Injection Control (FURS); 
Criminal Docket System (C-Docket); Federal Facilities Information System (FFIS); State 
Environmental Laws and Statutes (STATE); and PCB Activity Database System (PADS); 

• PCB Activity Database System (PADS) which includes generators, transporters, 
commercial storers, and/or brokers and disposers of PCBs who are required to notify the 
USEPA of such activities; 

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) list which includes manufacturers and importers 
of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list; 

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act/TSCA (FTTS) list which includes 
administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance actions related to 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; 

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act/TSCA (FTTS INSP) list which 
includes inspection information for cases regulated under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; 

• Section 7 Tracking Systems (SSTS) which includes pesticide-producing establishments 
that are registered with the USEPA in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; 

• The Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) which includes sites that possess or use 
radioactive materials which are subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing 
requirements; 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



C-15 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

• Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land (Indian UST) which includes sites with 
underground storage tanks (USTs) that are located on Indian owned land; 

• Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land (INDIAN LUST) which includes 
leaking underground storage tanks on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico, 
and Nevada; 

• Indian Reservations (INDIAN RESERV) which includes Indian administered lands of the 
United States that have an area equal to or greater than 640 acres; 

• Mines Master Index File (MINES) which includes properties that have been involved in 
mining including coal mining, quarrying, or sand and gravel operations; 

• Uranium Mill Tailings Sites (UMTRA) which includes former uranium ore mining sites 
where large piles of mill tailings remained after the uranium had been extracted from the 
ore; and 

• Open Dump Inventory (ODI) which is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply 
with one or more parts of Title 40 of the Federal Code of Regulations, Parts 257 or 258. 

STATE REGULATORY DATABASES 

Regulatory databases to track the status of permitted hazardous materials uses, environmental 
cases, and spill sites are also maintained by several state agencies. The state databases reviewed 
are summarized in Table C-2. They include: 

• The Annual Work Plan (AWP), formerly known as the Bond Expenditure Plan, identifies 
hazardous substance sites targeted for cleanup; 

• The California Bond Expenditure Plan (CA BOND EXP PLAN) includes sites for which 
a site-specific expenditure plan has been prepared for the appropriation of California 
Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 funds. This list is no longer updated; 

• List of Deed Restrictions (DEED) which lists sites which have been issued deed 
restrictions because of the presence of hazardous substances; 

• The Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing (SLIC Reg2) which 
include various sites within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Region RWQCB; 

• Statewide SLIC Cases (SLIC) which is maintained by the State Water Resources Control 
Board and includes a statewide list of SLIC cases; 

• Calsites (CAL-SITES), which was previously referred to as the Abandoned Sites 
Program Information System (ASPIS), identifies potential hazardous waste sites, which 
are then screened by the DTSC for further action. Sites on this list which are designated 
for no further action by the DTSC were removed from this list in 1996; 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:X203xxxX203428 



C-16 



Wharf J- JO Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



TABLE C-2 

STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY DATABASES REVIEWED 



Name of List 


Responsible Agency 


Acronym 


Date of List 


Annual Work Plan 


DTSC 


AWP 


11/9/04 


California Bond Expenditure Plan 


DHS 


CA BOND EXP 
PLAN 


1/1/89 


List of Deed Restrictions 


DTSC 


DEED 


10/4/04 


Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup Cost 
Recovery Listing 


RWQCB 


SLIC Reg2 


9/30/04 


Statewide SLIC Cases 


SWRCB 


SLIC 


1/10/05 


Calsites 


DTSC 


CAL-SITES 


1 1/9/04 


Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties 


DTSC 


VCP 


1 1/9/04 


Properties Needing Further Evaluation 


DTSC 


NFE 


1 1/9/04 


Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information 
System 


SWRCB 


LUST 


1/10/05 


Fuel Leak List 


RWQCB 


LUST Reg2 


9/30/04 


Solid Waste Information System 


CallWMB 


SWF/LF 


12/13/04 


Waste Management Unit Database 


SWRCB 


WMUDS/SWAT 


4/1/00 


Cortese Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List 


Cal EPA 


CORTESE 


4/1/01 


Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites 


SWRCB 


TOXIC PITS 


7/1/95 


Waste Discharge System 


SWRCB 


CA WDS 


12/20/04 


Proposition 65 Records 


SWRCB 


NOTIFY 65 


10/21/93 


No Further Action Determination 


DTSC 


NFA 


1 1/9/04 


Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency 


DTSC 


REF 


1 1/9/04 


School Property Evaluation Program 


DTSC 


SCH 


1 1/9/04 


California Hazardous Material Incident Report 
System 


Cal OES 


CHMERS 


12/31/03 


Hazardous Waste Information System 


Cal EPA 


HAZNET 


12/31/02 


Active UST Facilities 


SWRCB 


CA UST 


1/10/05 


Facility Inventory Database 


Cal EPA 


CA FID UST 


10/31/94 


Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database 


SWRCB 


HIST UST 


10/15/90 


Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities 


SWRCB 


AST 


12/1/03 


Cleaner Facilities 


DTSC 


CLEANERS 


1 1/29/04 


Emissions Inventory Data 


CARB 


EMI 


12/31/02 


Local Oversight Facilities 


SFDPH 


LOP 


12/9/04 


Underground Storage Tank Information 


SFDPH 


SFUST 


12/9/04 



Source: Environmental Data Resources, 2005 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



C-17 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



• Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties (VCP) which includes low threat level properties 
with either confirmed or unconfirmed releases and the project proponents have requested 
that the DTSC oversee investigation and/or cleanup activities; 

• Properties Needing Further Evaluation (NFE) which includes properties that are 
suspected of being contaminated, but contamination has not been confirmed. These sites 
would be assessed using the DTSC Preliminary Endangerment Assessment process; 

• The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUST) which is an 
inventory of sites with reported leaking underground storage tank incidents maintained 
by the State Water Resources Control Board; 

• The Fuel Leak List (LUST Reg2) which tracks remediation status of known leaking 
underground tanks within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB; 

• The Solid Waste Information System (SWF/LF) which includes a list of active, inactive 
or closed solid waste disposal sites, transfer facilities, or open dumps, as legislated under 
the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972; 

• The Waste Management Unit Discharge System (WMUDS/SWAT) which tracks waste 
management units. The list contains sites identified in the following databases: Facility 
Information; Scheduled Inspections Information; Waste Management Unit Information; 
SWAT Program Information; SWAT Report Summary Information; Chapter 15 
Information; Chapter 15 Monitoring Parameters; TPCA Program Information; RCRA 
Program Information; Closure Information; and Interested Parties Information; 

• Cortese Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (CORTESE) which includes sites 
designated be the State Water Resources Control Board (LUST cases), Integrated Waste 
Board (SWF/LS), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (CAL-SiTES); 

• Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites (TOXIC PITS) which includes sites suspected of containing 
hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed; 

• The Waste Discharge System (CA WDS) which lists sites which have been issued waste 
discharge requirements; 

• Proposition 65 Records (NOTIFY 65) which includes facility notifications about any 
release which could threaten drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential 
health risk; 

• No Further Action Determination (NFA) which includes properties at which the DTSC 
has made a clear determination that the property does not pose a problem to the 
environment or to public health; 

• Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency (REF) which includes properties 
where contamination has been confirmed and which were determined not to require direct 
DTSC Site Mitigation Program action or oversight. Accordingly, these sites have been 
referred to another state or local agency; 

• School Property Evaluation Program (SCH) which includes proposed and existing school 
sites that are being evaluated by DTSC for possible hazardous material contamination. In 
some cases, these properties may be listed in the Cal-Sites category depending on the 
level of threat they pose to public health and safety or to the environment; 

• $ 



Case No. 2001. 0636E C-18 Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 

G:\203xxA203428 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

• California Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (CHMIRS) which includes 
reported hazardous materials accidental releases or spills; 

• The Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET) which includes facility and 
manifest data for sites that file hazardous waste manifests with the DTSC. The 
information contained in the database is based on manifests submitted without correction, 
and therefore may contain some invalid information; 

• The Active UST Facilities list (CA UST) which lists registered USTs; 

• The Facility Inventory Database (CA FID UST) which is an historical listing of active 
and inactive underground storage tank locations. Local records should contain more 
current information; 

• The Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (HIST UST) which is an historical 
listing of UST sites. Local records should contain more specific information; 

• The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities database (AST) which lists 
registered ASTs; 

• The Cleaner Facilities database (CLEANERS) which lists drycleaner related facilities 
that have EPA identification numbers; and 

• Emissions Inventory Data (EMI) which includes sites for which the California Air 
Resources Board and local air pollution control agencies have collected toxic and criteria 
pollutant emission data. 

LOCAL REGULATORY DATABASES 

The San Francisco Department of Public Health also maintains two regulatory databases that 
were reviewed. These include the Local Oversight Facilities list (LOP) which includes leaking 
underground storage tank sites under the jurisdiction of this agency and the Underground Storage 
Tank Information list (SF UST) which includes sites with permitted underground storage tanks. 
These databases are also listed in Table C-2. 

DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS 

Permitted Hazardous Materials Uses, Environmental Cases, and Suspect Land Uses 

An environmental database review (EDR, 2005) was conducted to identify permitted uses of 
hazardous materials, environmental cases, suspect land uses, and spill site where soil and/or 
groundwater contamination may be present within a specified distance from the project site. The 
distances searched varied, depending on the type of regulatory database reviewed, and are 
consistent with the search distances specified in ASTM Standard E 1527 - Phase I Environmental 
Site Assessment Standard. A description of each database reviewed and the results of the 
database are provided in Appendix C of this EIR. In summary, 

Permitted Hazardous Materials Uses 

Because the use and handling of hazardous materials at currently permitted sites are subject to 
strict regulation, the potential for a release of hazardous materials from these sites is considered 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\103xxx-Q03428 



C-19 



Wharf J -10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 

low unless there is a documented chemical release, in which case the site would be also tracked in 
the environmental databases as an environmental case. Permitted sites without documented 
releases are nevertheless potential sources of hazardous materials to the soil and/or groundwater 
because of accidental spills, incidental leakage, or spillage that may have gone undetected. Sites 
identified in the project vicinity appear to involve primarily photo processing chemicals and past 
disposal of contaminated soils, and do not appear to pose a major public health concern with 
regard to the project site. Further information is provided in Appendix C. 

Permitted hazardous materials uses in the vicinity of the proposed project are listed in Table C-3 
along with the search distances used for each database. As indicated in this table, the only 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) large quantity generator identified within l A 
mile of the proposed project is Anchorage Enterprises located at 500 Beach Street; based on 
hazardous waste manifests, the primary waste disposed of from this facility was contaminated soil 
from site cleanups. There are five RCRA small quantity generators identified within Va mile of the 
project site. Hazardous Materials generated by Photos Now include photo processing wastes and 
waste oil and mixed oil, Walgreen' s and Pier 49 Photo Concessions likely produce similar wastes, 
but this information is not provided in the database review. The General Petroleum (formerly 
Mobil) marine fueling dock that serves the Fisherman's Wharf fleet produces oil containing 
wastes, waste oil, other inorganic solid wastes and other organic solid wastes. The San Francisco 
Maritime National Historic Park (including Hyde Street Pier)produces photo processing wastes, 
hydrocarbon solvent wastes, and other inorganic wastes among others. 

Environmental Cases and Suspect Land Uses 

Environmental cases identified by the environmental database review are those sites suspected of 
releasing hazardous materials or that have had cause for hazardous materials investigations and 
are identified on regulatory agency lists. Identification of hazardous materials at these sites is 
generally due to site disturbance activities such as removal or repair of an underground storage 
tank (UST), a release of hazardous materials, or excavation for construction. The reported status 
of each environmental case varies and can be either active (on-going investigations or 
remediation), closed (remediation or clean-up completed and approved by the regulatory agency), 
or unknown. Historic permitted uses such as former coal gas sites and historic UST sites are also 
considered permitted hazardous materials uses, but may be sources of contamination because 
these historic uses of hazardous materials were not well regulated. Therefore, historic UST sites 
and manufactured gas plant sites are considered "suspect land uses" for this analysis and 
discussed in this section. There were no spills reported at the existing Wharf J- 10 site, therefore 
spill sites are not discussed further. 

The former Mobil Oil Bulk Terminal is discussed in the EIR text, Chapter III.C, beginning on 
p. 67. Other environmental cases are discussed below. 



Case No. 200] .063 6E 

G:\203xxx\20342S 



C-20 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 

C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



TABLE C-3 

PERMITTED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USES 

Environmental Database 

(Radius Searched) 

Site No. Site Name Address RCRIS LQG RCRIS SQG 

(0.25 mi) (0.25 mi) 



F29 


Anchorage Enterprises LLC 


500 Beach St. 


X 




Al 


San Francisco Maritime NHP 


900 Beach St. 




X 


D17 


Mobil Oil Marine Station 


Foot of Hyde St. 




X 


33 


Walgreen No. 5815 


2801 Jones St. 




X 


F28 


Photos Now 


2800 Leavenworth St. 




X 


36 

Abbreviations: 


Pier 39 Photo Concessions 


Pier 41 




X 



RCRIS LQG: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System, Large Quantity Generator 
RCRIS SQG: Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Information System, Small Quantity Generator 

SOURCE: Orion Environmental Associates; EDR, 2005 



Other Environmental Cases 

As summarized in TableC-4, the environmental database review identified 25 LUST and/or 
Cortese sites within Vz mile of the proposed project as well as two formerly used defense sites 
(FUDS database) within one-mile; one SLIC case within Vi mile; two Notify 65 sites within one- 
mile; and one CERC NFRAP site within V* mile. Databases reviewed are described in Appendix 
C. Based on the proximity of cases identified, those environmental cases located within 1/8 mile 
of the proposed project site are considered to have the greatest potential to affect soil or 
groundwater quality at the project site and include: 

• A Port-owned site at 490 Jefferson Street (Site No. A7). This site was identified in the 
leaking underground storage tank (LUST) database. The database review indicates that a 
release of diesel has occurred (date not specified), but only soil quality was affected. 

• The Hyde Street Parking Garage at 2715 Hyde Street (Site No. 26). This site was 
identified in the LUST and Cortese databases. The database review indicates that a 
release of gasoline occurred in 1998, but only soil quality was affected. The case was 
closed by the regulatory agencies in 1998. 

• The San Francisco National Historic Park located at 900 Beach Street (Site No. Al). This 
site was identified in the CORTESE database. No other information was provided. 

• • The PG&E Gas Plant Site located at 680 Beach Street (Site No. C 1 8). This site was 
identified in the CERCLIS NFRAP database. The database review indicates that a 



Case No. 2001.0636E 

G:\203xxxS203428 



C-21 



Wharf J- 10 Demolition and Improvements 



VIII. APPENDICES 



C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS WASTES 



preliminary assessment was prepared for this site, but inclusion in this database indicates 
that the site was not recommended for inclusion on the National Priorities List (or 
Superfund list) and no further action was recommended. 

Because the leaking underground storage tank sites are soil only cases, it is unlikely that soil or 
groundwater quality at the project site would be affected by the documented release from either 
of these sites. Additional information would need to be obtained to evaluate the potential for a 
release at the National Historic Park site to affect soil or groundwater quality at the proposed 
project site. Similarly, a review of historic operations at the PG&E Gas Plant Site would be 
needed to assess the potential for manufactured gas plant residues to be present in soil or 
groundwater at the proposed project site. 

Suspect Land Uses 

Suspect land uses located within V% mile of the proposed project site include the following sites 
with historic USTs: Bowles Hopkins located at 765 Beach Street (Site No. 21), the San Francisco 
Marine Site located at 442 Jefferson Street (Site No. Al), both identified in the CA FID database; 
and the San Francisco Marine site located at the foot of Hyde Street (Site No. A6) identified in 
the HIST UST database. The Equitable Gaslight Company former manufactured gas site 
(described above under historic land uses) at 2800 Hyde Street (Site No. CI 6) was also identified 
in the Coal Gas database. Groundwater quality at the proposed project site could potentially be 
affected by a release of petroleum products to the groundwater at one of the historic UST sites, 
although the potential contaminants would be similar to those identified at the Former Mobil Oil 
Terminal. The former Equitable Gaslight Company could be a potential source of PAHs, 
petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, cyanide, metals, and phenols to soil and groundwater in the 
project vicinity. 

REFERENCES 

Unless otherwise noted, all references are available for review by appointment as part of the 
project environmental file at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, in Project File No. 
2001.0636E. 

Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). 2005. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck, Wharf 
J-10, Hyde Street/Jefferson Street, San Francisco, CA, 94109. Inquiry No. 01 369207. Ir. 
February 28. 



Case No. 200I.0636E 

G:\203xxjta03428 



C-22 



Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements 



I/} 

B 

< 

OO 

O 

5 
2 
< 

Q 
Z 
< 



< 

2 

00 

D 
O 
Q 
5 

u 



o 

O bo 



D 



35 ^ 



3 

00 



CO 

w 
S3 



T3 

o 



Q 



c 
o 

1-1 

> 
c 
w 



U 



1 

3 
o 

H 
'> 



1 



X 



X 



o 

o 
u 

§ o 

£ B 

M 

oo W 





o 


in 


m 




hJ 


no 


oo 


m 




J 


3 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



oo 
pq 



00 

,s 

XA 

O 



£ J 
00 < 



X 



X 



PC 



X 



X 



d 

O0 ^3 

r > y 



X 



9 o 



X 



X 



X 



X 



00 

1 3 



rn © 
U u 

3 

a S 

a. u_ 



U 



X 



D3 



X 



03 



00 



X 



X 



3 




C 
















□ 




O 




cs 












3 


ert 


o 
c 


ti ip 


H 





CM 
0- 



x 



x 



X 



X 



X 



X 



u 



oo 

3 



u 



o 

SO 



o 
o 



D. 

o 



s : 

U 



c 

V 

c 

o 

13 



1 



a. 



00 
UJ 

00 

< 

00 

O 
Q 
as 
< 

Q 

Z 
< 



< 
as 



oo 
D 
O 
Q 

< 

9 



U 



D 



u 



T3 

s 



GO 



Q 
-3 



cd 
73 



> 
c 
W 



X 



3 

I 

M «j 

o > 
U < 



5 



x 



a o 
CX u 



x 



X 



X 



X 



X 



O 6o 



X 



X 



a oo 



c 

<o 

CX 

o 
a. 



X 



O oo 



X 



T3 

X 



00 

e 

(X 



±3 

oo u 

-o 2 

k a 



x 



x 



00 

■a o 
>> o 
ffi IX 



tx 



X 



X 



X 



5 



O ^3 
IX (X 



X 



■g 



IX 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



X 



o 

c 
> 



ill oo 



Oh 



o 

to * 

W 2 



ts 

u 
(X 

S 

Oh 



IX 



0/3. 



O 00 



3« 



u 



f- 1 H 



00 



Q 



c 
o 

H 

> 
e 
w 



e 

6 
c 
o 

. »-< 

■> 



w b2 



X 



X 



X 



e 

_o 

00 "c 

.y c 

> o 

S3 Q 

=3 o 

_c ■— < 

oo * 



a 



X 



X 



X 



X 



u 

> < 



X 



> < 



GO 

c 
•9 
'3 

■a 

O 



X 



> < 



o 
o 

pa 

Q 

w 



"3 

c 

i 

o 
> 

■a 

c 
o 
■c 
O 

oo 

w 
u 

OS 

5 
o 

oo 




CHAPTER IX 



EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS 



EIR AUTHORS 

San Francisco Planning Department 
Major Environmental Analysis 
1660 Mission Street, Fifth Floor 
San Francisco, California 94103 
Environmental Review Officer: Paul E. Maltzer 
EIR Coordinator: Nannie Turrell 
EIR Supervisor: Rick Cooper 
Archeology: Randall Dean 



EIR CONSULTANTS 

Environmental Science Associates 

225 Bush Street, Suite 1700 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Project Manager: Karl F. Heisler 
Kelly M. Ross 
Anthony Padilla 
Elizabeth Kanner 
Marty Abell, AICP 

Orion Environmental Associates 
(Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Geology) 
211 Sutter Street, Suite 605 
San Francisco, California 94108 
Principal: Joyce M. Hsiao 

Mary Lucas McDonald 



Architectural Resources Group 
(Historic Resources) 
Pier 9, The Embarcadero 
San Francisco, California 941 1 1 
Principal: Bridget Maley 
Jody R. Stock 



Yuki Kawaguchi, Cartographer 
(Graphics) 

21 1 Sutter Street, Suite 605 
San Francisco, California 94108 



PROJECT SPONSOR 

Port of San Francisco 

Pier 1, The Embarcadero 

San Francisco, California 941 1 1 

Contact: Diane Oshima, Deputy Director, Waterfront Planning 



Case No. 200J.0636E 

G:\203xxA203428 



Wharf J-J0 Demolition and 
(Partial) Reconstruction 



San Francisco Planning Department 
Major Environmental Analysis 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, California 94103 

Attn: Nannie Turrell, EIR Coordinator 
2001.0636E: Wharf J-10 Project 



PLEASE CUT ALONG DOTTED LINE 



RETURN REQUEST REQUIRED FOR FINAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 



REQUEST FOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 

TO: San Francisco Planning Department, Major Environmental Analysis 

Check one box: □ Please send me a copy of the Final EIR on CD. 

□ Please send me a paper copy of the Final EIR. 

Signed: 

Print Your Name and Address in the Box Below: